Sitting of 11 February 1944

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on to-day's Business?
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): It might facilitate matters if I told the House the proposal we have in mind. The Class X Votes down for consideration in Committee of Supply to-day are of a technical nature and some of the others may not keep the Committee very long. Hon. Members, I anticipate, wish to debate the last Vote, that for the Treasury which contains the salary of the Minister of Reconstruction. I hope, however, that we need not spend very long in considering the Supplementary Estimates. I propose that we should then resume the adjourned Debate on Second Reading of the House of Commons Disqualification (Temporary Provisions) Bill, for which purpose I propose to move the suspension of the Rule, purely as a precautionary measure. Afterwards, if all goes well, we would like to take the Public Works Loans Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; the remaining stages of the Guardianship (Refugee Children) Bill [Lords], and the Second Reading of the Prize Salvage Bill [Lords]. These must be taken before the usual hour for rising.
Mr. Shinwell: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that the Debate on the Supplementary Estimate relating to the salary of the Minister of Reconstruction, may take much longer than he seems to anticipate. Very wide issues are involved. Although we cannot discuss policy, the points involved are much wider in their implications than might at first seem to be the case. In those circumstances, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would exclude it from the list for to-day and provide a more ample opportunity of discussing it later, or whether he would exclude some of the other Votes.
Mr. Eden: If it should prove to be the case that the Debate took a long time, I
2010
would not be able to get the other Bills I mentioned. Those Bills, as I say, would have to be taken before the normal hour for rising. But I do not anticipate that the Debate on the Vote mentioned by my hon. Friend, will be very long.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered:
"That the Proceedings on the House of Commons Disqualification (Temporary Provisions) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Eden.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1943
  CLASS II

    DOMINION SERVICES
    Motion made, and Question proposed.
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for sundry Dominion services, including certain grants in aid, and for expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in Eire, and for a grant in aid to Eire in respect of compensation to transferred officers."
    Mr. Tinker: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, in order to get through the Votes quickly, they are to be taken together, or must they be taken separately? I want to raise a question on supplementary pensions.
    The Deputy-Chairman: They must be taken separately.
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: I would like to make some comments on the item of £850 for the Parliamentary Mission to Newfoundland. Will it be in Order to do so on this Vote?
    The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, it should be done now.
    Mr. Baxter: I am certain that the Committee will not grudge this sum of £850 for the Parliamentary Mission to Newfoundland, or, as it has sometimes been called, the good will mission. The sum is not large, and it is obvious that the three Members who journeyed to Newfoundland did not indulge in riotous living, at any rate at the expense of the Government. Nor can it be suggested even by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), that there are any charges of corruption. This expenditure, however, is
    2014
    an expenditure of public money, and we must scrutinise it as carefully as we would a larger sum. Therefore, I want to ask one or two questions.
    Was the purpose of sending these Members to begin that process of political education which we pledged ourselves to do in 1933 and which we have not carried out? Is this the beginning of a series of visits by Members of this House to explain to Newfoundlanders the value of Parliamentary government which we enjoy and which is denied to them? There is another possible explanation. Was it a courtesy visit to thank Newfoundland for lending us money without interest during the war? None of us will question the good work done by the three Members of Parliament who went out there. They wrote a voluminous report which we were not allowed to read, but subsequently they made speeches, which were, perhaps, on the basis of the King's remarks in "Hamlet":
    "My words fly up, my thoughts remain below."
    We heard their words, but perhaps their thoughts were buried in the report which we were not allowed to read. Did the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary have any real purpose in mind, or was it because they felt the time for action had arrived? We have a right to inquire into all these things. It is true that our colleagues came back and informed us that there was no great demand in Newfoundland at the present time for self-government. The Under-Secretary, in one of his two speeches, conveyed that to us as well, almost with a sense of satisfaction, as if the fact that the public there did not want self-government was a justification of the inertia of the Dominions Office.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I should warn the Committee that we cannot, on this Vote, which is very narrow and applies only to the actual visit; discuss the whole question of Newfoundland self-government.
    Mr. Baxter: I understood from the remarks of the Leader of the House that we were to debate this broadly. It seems to me that we must try to discover what was in the mind of the Dominions Office which resulted in this expenditure, small as it is. I will try to reduce my remarks because I know that there is a great deal of business before the House. I am sure,

    2015
    however, that the Committee will not grudge a few minutes to the discussion of a distressed part of the Empire. With your permission, Mr. Williams, I will put this last point, about self government. After 10 years—I will reduce it to one sentence—it is small wonder that those people have lost the instinct to use the vote.
    I now come back to the question of the expense. One may ask, since we sent these hon. Members out at the Government's expense, did they, perhaps, carry an invitation to Newfoundland to be represented at the Imperial Conference, to be held here in May? That would be a justification for the £850. Therefore, I think I am in order in putting the question: "Is Newfoundland to be represented? If so by whom? "If the Under-Secretary of State says that he, or the Secretary of State will watch the interests of the Island, they will be like trustees in bankruptcy, and that will not be satisfactory. Newfoundland must and should be invited to the Imperial Conference, with its own representatives. We cannot have an official or a Minister representing them, except from Newfoundland. I think that the Committee would like to know something about that matter from the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. It is now nearly two months since we held the £850 Debate—you see how closely I am keeping to the point, Mr. Williams—and I see that as a result of that expenditure and the advice then given, the Government have taken more interest in that part of the world. I see that we have done something about increasing the supply of fish from Iceland, which is in the same part of the the world. Iceland is not a part of the Empire, but I am wondering whether, as a result of this expenditure—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not really think that the question of fish from Iceland arises under this Vote.
    Mr. Baxter: In saying that we must not talk about fish I assume, Mr. Williams, that you do not mean fish that comes from Newfoundland but fish that did come from Iceland?
    The Deputy-Chairman: No, I do not think we can talk about fish from Newfoundland either.
    Mr. Baxter: Then I will leave the fish and come on to the other part of my argument. I hope that the Dominions Office will not think that Newfoundland was pleased with the Debate which took place following the return of the three M.P.'s, because comments in the Newfoundland Press have been very caustic. The Government may say that the Press does not necessarily represent the point of view of Newfoundland, but owing to the Government's policy, there is no other form of expression for that distressed area, that impoverished island, that dispossessed part of the Empire. The Press is the only voice, and it has been caustic. Quite frankly, it does not believe that the Dominions Office mean business. I will bring these remarks to a close because I see that my next point might bring a reproof. [An hon. Member: "What is it?"] This is what I want to say. To those who were born in the Island and to whom these traditions of human liberty, justice and self-government—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but we have already had a Debate on this matter, as he has himself just informed the Committee, and we cannot so enlarge this Supplementary Estimate, which is a very simple one, as to discuss the whole question of human liberty and things of that kind, much as we might like to do so.
    Mr. Baxter: I realise, Mr. Williams, that I have made great demands on your courtesy and judgment, which are both very great, and therefore I must drop any expression of devotion to the Imperial ideal at this moment. But it did seem to me that the hon. Gentlemen who went to the Island did so to try to discover what human liberty, justice and self-government meant to those people. With great respect, I believe that is why they went out. They came back and reported that self-government does not mean to those people what it means to the rest of the Empire. It seems to me that this is in Order, because if we are to send M.P.'s away from their jobs here—
    The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman states that the payment of this money enabled these three Members to come back and to explain certain things, that is in Order as an illustration. It would not be right however to carry that illustration on into a wide discussion as

    2017
    regards the principles of liberty. To say merely that they came back strengthened in their ideas of liberty, would be in Order.
    Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of Order. Certain public funds have been spent by the Government in selecting three Members of this House to go to Newfoundland. For what purpose was this done? There must be some reason. Was it to give a holiday to three Members of Parliament? In fact, those three Members worked very hard, and no one took exception to their going out, but surely we are entitled to ask, on the merits of their visit, what it was that induced the Government to send them, and to raise the question of the merits of the report that they made. Otherwise, the expenditure remains unexplained.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That seems to me to be what we have been listening to for some while. It was only when the hon. Gentleman got beyond the merits, that I intervened.
    Mr. Baxter: It seems to me that I am in Order in saying that either these men went out for some purpose or for no purpose, that they did find this decline in values, and that they came back and reported to this House. We are not opposing the expenditure for that discovery, but we have to say: Was it worth while? Are there to be more? If these great and fundamental facts can be ascertained only by sending Members of this House abroad, it seems that the depopulation of this House, which is already very great, will be still greater. Although the hon. Members concerned do not come under the charges mentioned yesterday. [An HON. MEMBER: "One went to the House of Lords."] There is a suggestion that one went to another place, but I am sure that that was for very long service and for other reasons not of a material character.
    These three M.P.'s reported that the people of Newfoundland were not in favour of self-government at this time. Opposing that opinion, is the "St. John's News," a newspaper of great influence and very finely edited. It has put forward a plea—a suggestion, if you will, but I call it a plea—for the immediate election of a constituent assembly to prepare plans for the formation, and the resumption, of self-government. May I ask the Under-Secretary, as a justification of this expen-
    2018
    diture and of his policy in sending Members of the House abroad and inviting their wisdom, whether we can believe that, out of this expenditure of public money, we are to have some action on the part of the Dominions Office, or whether there is to be the same lack of imagination, strength and faith as there has been? That is what we have been contending with in the past. I am much obliged to you, Mr. Williams, and the Committee for having heard me with such patience.
    Mr. Shinwell: We are asked here to agree to an expenditure of £850, and we are entitled, as a right, to ask for what purpose the money is to be expended. That is clear. If we are precluded from asking that question, obviously the privilege of hon. Members has been rudely shattered. I fully agree, and this is well known to all hon. Members, that when a Supplementary Estimate is presented to the Committee, the Debate is circumscribed. We cannot therefore discuss wide questions of policy, and such is not our intention.
    The first matter to which I direct attention is what appears to me to be a technical issue. A delegation of three hon. Members was appointed to proceed to Newfoundland. We were not consulted about the personnel of that deputation. Who selected that delegation, we do not know. Hon. Members will be good enough to note that if the House of Commons had been consulted on the personnel of the delegation they might have expressed other views. But be it noted also that we were not asked to express an opinion on the personnel of the delegation. Subsequently however this Committee is asked to provide the funds. So far I appear to be in Order. This raises—and it seems to me to be quite appropriate at this stage—the question of whether delegations, when appointed and sent abroad, are to be regarded as official delegations. Clearly, that must be so, if we are called upon to provide the funds. If we provide the funds, and if thereby, the delegation is official in character, we are entitled to expect from that delegation a full and open report on their investigations. In this case their discoveries have been concealed from hon. Members. There have emerged, in surreptitious fashion, some ideas they had gathered, some impressions they had derived from their visit to Newfoundland.

    2019
    I say, with the greatest respect to the Government, it is not playing fair with hon. Members to impose on us a delegation without consultation and ask us to provide the funds—and to deny us the opportunity of consideration of the full report of the delegation. Suppose this delegation is regarded as unofficial—and it would seem that it was in fact unofficial, because we are precluded from asking what they have discovered—then why are we asked to provide the money? That seems to be a manifestly fair point, and I assure the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, it is a point which will be raised again and again. He may make up his mind now on that. It is not a light matter. It is an important issue for hon. Members and it is an important issue for those who are concerned abroad. I am not raising that issue at this moment, but I want to know from the hon. Gentleman whether he regards as official the delegation, for whom he is now asking the necessary funds—although it occurs to me that they may have received their expenses already. [Interruption.] That is a serious matter if they have, in fact, received expenses already, before we have been called upon to decide whether they should receive them or not. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will inform the Committee whether this delegation was official, and, if so, why we were precluded from obtaining the report of their investigations. If, on the other hand, the delegation was unofficial in character why we are asked to provide the funds? That is the first point. I hope we will get a clear answer, as indeed we always do from my hon. Friend within the inhibitions of Government policy—and we all know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on that bench are too often inhibited.
    My next point is this. There is a great deal of talk, and rightly so, about the cementing of the British Empire. For many reasons, which I cannot discuss just now, it is of fundamental importance, and attention will be directed to the subject very shortly. There appeared to be a disposition yesterday on the part of the Government to agree to a Debate very shortly, so we can hold our horses for the time being, on the wider issue. But when there is this almost unanimous approval of the need for Empire cementation, in relation to political and economic issues of fundamental importance, surely it is a
    2020
    travesty to deal with Newfoundland, our oldest Colony, in this undemocratic and indeed unconstitutional and un-Commonwealth fashion.
    I am the recipient, as no doubt other hon. Members are, of a weekly periodical published in St. John's, Newfoundland, and I read it occasionally. It is a bit turgid in character—I hope the editor will not mind my saying so—but when I read of the pathetic plight of our colonists, of some of the people of our great Commonwealth, and compare their pathetic plight with the high falutin' utterances of Members of the Government and hon. Members and right hon. Members on the subject of the Empire and its prospects, I wonder whether the Government are not playing fast and loose with these people. It does not seem to me to be fair. There may be constitutional or other difficulties in the way of a rapprochement, of a settlement, of a solution of the problem, but in some way we have got to clear up the position. I hope that when my hon. Friend is replying to this discussion he will deal first with the important technical issues involved, and also give us some indication in a limited form, which is all we can expect him to do, that we are viewing the situation of our people in Newfoundland—for they are our people, make no mistake about it—with the utmost sympathy and favour.
    Mr. Maxton: I do not wish to delay the Committee on this Supplementary Estimate, which offers only very limited a way of approaching this important subject, but as hon. Members know I have been interested in the matter and I look on Newfoundland as having been badly treated. I protested against the sending of this good will mission. If the Committee had listened to me at that time, we would have been £850 in pocket which in these days—[Interruption.] The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I understand, says that is nothing. Since the right hon. Gentleman reached his present high position, nothing that has less than six cyphers after it interests him. This Commission came back and made a report—more or less. The House has had no report, but the members of the Commission, knowing my interest in the matter, were good enough to submit to me their individual Reports. I read right through the whole lot.
    Mr. MacLaren: Tell us what they contained.
    Mr. Maxton: It would be rather difficult to compress. But they were all interesting; they showed that there had been much travelling on the spot, and a keen interest taken in the subject. But it is suggested that it would take about 10 years before this Dominion could have self-government restored. It is very like the African policy: we are all in favour of the Africans having a greater share in democratic government, but they must go through a period of training and preparation first. That may be good enough for Africans—I do not know, for Africans seem to me as competent to manage the affairs of their own country as we are to manage ours—but it does not seem the right policy for the Newfoundlanders, who, as far as I have had contact with them, strike me as a very fine and intelligent body of people.
    It seems that there is nobody in the whole island with any political interest and that, first of all, political development in that area would have to be stimulated. There are no suggestions in the report of how we are to begin to stimulate that interest. I got a booklet from the North of Scotland, called "Blue Print for Newfoundland," and on the booklet was the address, "Newfoundland Forestry Unit, Inverness." I wrote acknowledging receipt of the booklet, and said that if the writer were in London, or in the West of Scotland at any time, I would like to meet him. I had him here at the House yesterday. At home he was a small farmer, farming some 40 acres, which he had homesteaded for himself. He had cleared the ground, cut down the timber, and made his own farm. Then, when the call came for service over here, he joined the Forestry Unit, and has been operating in the North of Scotland. That man was as intelligent a man as I have ever met. That scheme which he laid down was as sound as anything produced by our three Commissioners. I do not know that he has got Socialist or Labour ideas. He has just Newfoundland ideas, but that man, I am certain, is capable of doing first-class political work. He is staying at the Newfoundland Club, and I hope the Government will take the opportunity of talking with him. [Interruption.] They might take the
    2022
    opportunity of arranging for him to see the noble Lord.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is possibly getting a little wide.
    Mr. Maxton: It was in answer to the hon. Member's remark.
    The Deputy-Chairman: But the hon. Gentleman caused the remark to be made.
    Mr. Maxton: I want to ask whether, in addition to sending the good will mission, which reports that political activities should be stimulated there, anything organised is being done to stimulate political activity and interest among the very large number of Newfoundlanders at present in this country. I ask specifically, whether the Dominions Office will make arrangements for me to go round giving addresses, on my own line of political thinking, in the various Newfoundland camps in this country? If my type of political philosophy can secure representation in this House of Commons, it is good enough to be heard by Newfoundlanders in this country. If the Government are genuinely interested in carrying out the recommendations of their good will mission I am prepared to play my part in helping to stimulate political interest in the minds of Newfoundlanders at present resident in this country. I do not care if the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary follows me up with a course of lectures, to neutralise any damage I have done, provided that he goes on the same lines as I would with my lectures, and, after speaking, asks whether the men have any questions to put.
    I want to know whether this £850, which is to be paid to our good will mission will be taken out of the money that Newfoundland has lent to this country. Our Commission of Government, an alien government, establishes itself in Newfoundland and collects taxation for the purpose of maintaining the revenues of Newfoundland. Newfoundland, out of these revenues, has carried on its ordinary machinery, has maintained the Commission of Government, has equipped, I believe, an air squadron, or something of that sort—at any rate, has made some contribution towards the Forces out of its revenue. Then, we are told that they are giving loans free of interest to this country. According to an answer given to me, out of the taxation that these people are

    2023
    paying into the hands of our Commissioners out there, the Commissioners, instead of spending it on Newfoundland purposes, have taken a surplus amounting now to over 20,000,000 dollars, and have sent it over here. Our civil servants in Newfoundland have taken out of the public treasury there, over 20,000,000 dollars, and have lent it free of interest to the home Government. The Prime Minister of Newfoundland was driven out of office because he was supposed to be speculating with the public funds. The Commissioners have taken 22,000,000 dollars of public money, and have sent it over here, when there are a hundred ways in which Newfoundland could use it now. I ask whether, in addition to their other mishandlings of Newfoundland affairs, they have taken this £850 out of the money that Newfoundland sent us.
    Another thing I want to point out is that Canada, the United States and Great Britain have all, in this last 10 years, realised the strategic importance of Newfoundland as regards the air. All have now got their airports for war purposes. It is a very big development. The United States and Great Britain are all there, and, so far as I can judge, watching one another like hawks. The hon. Gentleman has some doubt as to whether Newfoundland would have the revenue in normal times to maintain itself on a prosperous level. I suggest, from this Committee to the people of Newfoundland, that they should get control of their own island and use their bargaining powers between these competing parties anxious to buy something that they have got to sell—the right to establish airports and maintain airports in Newfoundland. They could make enough out of the island to put their revenue on a very sound foundation. I am giving that point to the Newfoundlanders, because, as far as I can see, the airports of the three great nations interested were acquired without any consultation at all.
    I suppose the Committee will want to give this £850. It would be ungracious to our three colleagues to grudge this relatively small amount. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) referred in his very striking speech to various ways in which Members of Parliament have relief, of one kind or another, out of the public till, but he did
    2024
    not talk about this one. The former hon. Member for North Camberwell, now Lord Ammon, has his reward spiritually and also in more dignified form. I am aware, although I myself have never participated in it and have no desire in the difficult conditions of war time, that, from time to time respected colleagues in this House disappear and are gone. They return, with bronzed faces, telling us about the oranges they had for breakfast and so on.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Is there anything about oranges in the Newfoundland Report?
    Mr. Maxton: No, there is a greater attachment to lemons. I have said before and I repeat that I do not mind the boys having their fun. I have never grudged any Member of this House any bit of light entertainment, but do not let us go to the extent of regarding this sort of thing as a little bit of patronage—something to tie a man more securely to the chariot wheels of the Juggernaut car which operates in this country.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Something said by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has passed completely unchallenged. He said that missions from this House of Commons or this country, should either be official or unofficial. He went on to say that, if they were official, they should be paid for and a proper report should be rendered, and if they were unofficial, they should not be paid for. If that doctrine is accepted, it follows that semi-official goodwill Missions by Members of this House would be completely out of place and out of Order. I feel that the cementing of the Empire to which the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) attaches proper importance, would suffer greatly. I believe that the future of all relationships between this House of Commons and the countries in the Empire, depends largely on semi-official contacts. There was an excellent goodwill mission to China. I hope the hon. Member for Seaham will think better of it, and will not condemn, out of hand, these unofficial bodies. I am not going so far as to say that visits of Members of Parliament to part of the Empire might necessarily impress the Empire with our merits. They will, in many cases do so; in others, they will not. What I

    2025
    am certain of is that the effect on this House of Commons of visits by Members is valuable.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I inquire—I have no knowledge on the subject—whether the Chinese mission was paid for by Parliament?
    The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but not now.
    Mr. Nicholson: Yes, it was. I attach great importance to these semi-official good will missions, and if it is laid down that no mission may go out from this House unless on the lines of a Royal Commission, I believe you will frustrate a great deal of the good will, and render void, much of the good work that may be done by Members of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: May I be allowed to turn to another item in this Vote? I would remind the Committee, first on this question of failure of reporting on behalf of the Newfoundland Mission, that, some years ago, there was a Commission in the West Indies. Members of the House of Commons were on it, but we never had a report from that quarter, either. I think the Government published the recommendations and have carried some of them out, but I do not think the Commission's report has ever been issued.
    The point I want to raise is in connection with the Empire Societies War Hospitality Committee. I think that, where we are spending the sum of £31,000 on these societies, the Minister might tell the House what the societies are. I would like to ask whether, in granting a sum of money like this, the accounts of these outside organisations are audited by Government auditors. I raise that point because, in connection with some subsidies to our social services—I speak with knowledge of Health Insurance—there is an annual sum of about £6,000,000,000 in the Health Insurance Vote, and the whole of the accounts of the societies are audited by the Government. I want to know whether these Empire societies' accounts are actually subject to Government audit. I do not want to say anything about the Empire parliamentary Association, but I should not be surprised if this sum of £31,000 covers a subsidy to that Association. It is an organisation that does a great deal of good work. But there is
    2026
    nothing here to say what the societies are, though I should be astonished to find that a subsidy to the Empire Parliamentary Association is not included.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That comes under another Vote.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: I am glad to have that assurance from the Chair; I will probably get an opportunity later of raising the point. May I say, in conclusion, about these Supplementary Votes, that I hope the Government will not adopt the policy of granting lump sums of money to societies and letting them use Government money as they please without some check by Government auditors on those sums? I do not want Government auditors to pursue and check the spending of their own money, but where Government grants are given—perhaps £10,000 or £20,000—I think the House of Commons is entitled to know how those subsidies are being spent.
    Sir Stanley Reed: If I am in Order in doing so, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State whether Members of the Mission to Newfoundland made it clear, either to the people of Newfoundland or to the House of Commons, what this loan, without interest, really represents? Does it represent a loan in the ordinary sense of the term, or does it represent a balance unfunded in that form, for convenience pending a final financial arrangement?
    Major Thorneycroft: Everyone will agree that the £850 in the matter of Newfoundland was probably well spent but we want to see that it is not wasted. Other hon. Members have spoken of the value of a report on the political conditions in Newfoundland. It struck me that perhaps the greatest value of the visit of the three hon. Members was the practical proposals they put forward with regard to the roads, the tourist industry, the fishing industry and so forth of Newfoundland. It would be unfortunate if, having spent £850, and having sent these hon. Members all the way to Newfoundland and brought them back, and having heard their report, nothing should happen at all. There is a feeling at the moment that the Government have forgotten the mission and do not seem likely to take any action on the report. I hope that my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary,

    2027
    will be able to say that some of the practical proposals that have been put forward by the three hon. Members, are receiving the consideration of the Government and that something will be done about them.
    Mr. Granville: I agree with the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) that, on the whole these visits of a good will character which are undertaken from time to time by Members of this House to the Colonies and the Dominions, do a certain amount of good. It is important that when the delegations are chosen they should be as representative as possible of the House of Commons and of the life of this country. I understand that there is to be a good will mission to the Dominion of Australia in the near future representing the Mother of Parliaments. I think that will do a great deal of good. These commissioners—however they are styled—cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be referred to as "forgotten men" such as those we were discussing yesterday. These three commissioners are the men who came back. The unfortunate part about it is that, when they came back, they did not issue a report of what they learned, saw and experienced during their visit to Newfoundland.
    We are discussing to-day an item of £850 on the Dominions Office Vote. The Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions answers questions in the House of Commons and is to reply to this Debate. I say nothing disparaging about the hon. Gentleman. He has replied to a great number of these questions with regard to the Dominions, but he has replied for the Dominions Office, and the Dominions are getting a little tired of this Whitehall "Whiggery." When the hon. Gentleman comes to the Imperial Parliament, the Mother of Parliaments, and makes a statement, it is a statement made by him on behalf of the Dominions Office. If he is representing the Dominions Office, he is not only representing the House of Commons and the country, but the Commonwealth of British Nations.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I am doing nothing of the kind. The hon. Member does not realise that there are five different independent States under the
    2028
    Statute of Westminster, and I represent only the Government of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Granville: I realise that, but, on Newfoundland, the hon. Gentleman speaks in the House of Commons for a Dominion which is not, at present, a member of the Commonwealth of British nations.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I speak on behalf of Newfoundland in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Granville: Would the hon. Member suggest to me that the great Dominion of Canada has no interest in the statement he is to make to-day?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think the Debate is again getting rather wide. This Debate is definitely connected only with the £850 required on this Vote, and it would not be in Order to discuss the interests of other Dominions, as they are not providing a share of that money.
    Mr. Granville: I will content myself by saying that the Under-Secretary is to reply and that his reply will be of tremendous interest to Newfoundland and Canada, and I believe, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said, it will be of tremendous importance to the coming Conference of Dominion Prime Ministers, vis-à-vis the vital question of civil aviation. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the specific question of civil aviation referred to by the hon. Member for Bridgeton is to be considered by the coming Conference of the Dominion Prime Ministers to be held in May, according to the newspapers. The hon. Member for Bridgeton has let the cat out of the bag. If there is one reason why this report is not being given to the House of Commons, is not being made a Government report, and is not being published, it must be that Newfoundland will be the greatest civil aviation prize in the post-war world.
    Mrs. Tate: It has been given away.
    Mr. Granville: The hon. Lady says that it has been given away.
    Mrs. Tate: It has.
    Mr. Granville: It has been said in the House of Commons and elsewhere that in the years immediately after the war, it will not be possible to arrange for

    2029
    routine services from America to this country without touching down at the island of Newfoundland.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but really postwar civil aviation does not come under this Vote.
    Mr. Granville: I was merely saying, following the hon. Member for Bridgeton, that it is the great prize and perhaps that is the reason why the report has not been made public. At least I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make some statement with regard to this matter and tell us whether Newfoundland is to be the great future terminus of civil aviation and whether it has a great future in this respect. Is it not regarded, not only by Canada and by this country, but perhaps by America, as a great international civil aviation terminus and, therefore, of tremendous importance to the future of civil aviation? I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should be anxious about this Debate. If there has ever been a Debate in which the Government have got off lighter than they have in this Debate, I would like to hear of it. The Government have had no opposition on this policy; they have got away with it. If my hon. Friend had done what, I believe, he wanted to do, if he had had the time or if it had been in Order, to quote the speeches of the Deputy-Prime Minister in the House of Commons, and the present Minister of Aircraft Production in the past, on this problem, no Government, whatever its power and constitution, would have got away with this.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member could not have done that, because it would have been out of Order.
    Mr. Granville: I must be in Order in suggesting that the hon. Member would have been out of Order, and that that was the reason why he did not raise it. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) referred to the future organisation or constitution of Newfoundland from an economic aspect, which is, obviously, an important question. These are important problems, and if the Government give us narrow replies within the context of this or that section of the old British Imperialism, then there is no future for the British Commonwealth of
    2030
    Nations as such. If the Dominions Office give a lead in a new democratic conception of the British Commonwealth of Nations we shall give a lead to all the young men who are fighting for and defending it to-day to the "brave new world"—which was apparently merely the carrot before the donkey in 1940. Those young men will see that the British Commonwealth of Nations faces the future, within the structure of the United Nations, as a great and powerful unit. Unless we give that lead, these Debates will become interesting to fewer and fewer Members in this House, until the British Commonwealth of Nations, as we know it, will cease to be an important political factor as such in our discussion of international affairs.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): The speech of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) would give the impression that the Government have taken no initiative in this matter, but I would point out that it was on the initiative of my right hon. Friend the present Lord President of the Council that this mission went out at all. There was very little interest in the subject in this House and in this country or, indeed, in Newfoundland itself, until my right hon. Friend went there himself soon after he became the Secretary of State for the Dominions.
    Mr. Shinwell: Surely the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Surely the constitutional and economic difficulties of Newfoundland have been known to hon. Members for many years.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: Of course they have, but I am saying that until my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council went out there a few months after he became Secretary of State, there had been no Debates on the question in the House of Commons for many years. The initiative came from my right hon. Friend and from the Dominions Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) asked whether this was the beginning of a process of education in Newfoundland. That was one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Lord President said in the course of his speech that he was asking my hon. Friends to go out to Newfoundland in order to initiate interest in political affairs. The hon. Member asked also whether

    2031
    they went there to thank the people of Newfoundland for their services. Yes, Sir, they did thank the people of Newfoundland for their services; they made a number of speeches during their tour in which they thanked the people, not only for their financial help, but for their services in the Air Force and in the Army and, particularly, in the Navy. When I discussed this question in the Debate on the Address before Christmas, I pointed out that the whole purpose of this visit was to arouse, if possible, some interest on the part of the people of Newfoundland on the question of governing themselves once more. They have received, of course, no invitation to the meeting of Prime Ministers. It is a meeting of Prime Ministers and not an Imperial Conference, as my hon. Friend suggested.
    Mr. Granville: I am glad to have that clear statement, because from various statements made by various members of the Government it was not clear whether it was a Dominions Conference or a meeting of Prime Ministers. But is the hon. Gentleman telling us that this subject is not to be discussed at this meeting?
    Mr. Baxter: Is it really the determination of the Government that this island, which was a Dominion for almost 70 years, is not to be invited to this meeting; that it is to be exclusively for the solvent Dominions and not for this distressed area?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The position is quite clear. This is a meeting of Prime Ministers of the self-governing Dominions who control their own foreign policy.
    Mr. Baxter: Who will represent the interests of Newfoundland at this meeting, because Newfoundland must be discussed?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: My noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions will represent the Island of Newfoundland during the conversations and if any question arises in those conversations about its future.
    Mr. Baxter: He will be the trustee in bankruptcy?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: No, he will not be the trustee in bankruptcy. The hon. Member asked whether we had taken any
    2032
    action on the Report of the three Members. The answer is that we have done so. We have already sent a despatch to the Commission of Government in Newfoundland and asked them to go into all the questions which the hon. Members raised in their Reports, and we hope to take action in due course.
    Mr. A. Bevan: We have not seen the Report.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The hon. Member for Wood Green said there had been a certain amount of caustic comment in the Press, and also expressed the view that the Press afforded the only means of expressing public opinion in the island. I have no doubt that the hon. Member lays particular stress on what the Press says the Government should do, but the Government have made up their minds from other sources. During the Debate before Christmas the three Members made it clear that public opinion in the island was not in favour of the immediate restoration of self-government, and I do not recall having seen any very caustic comment. In fact, I have seen very little comment in the Newfoundland Press with regard to the questions raised during the Debate. As I said before, the Dominions Office initiated this mission and they propose to act upon the views it expressed. The hon. Member for Seaham asked whether the mission was of an official character. Yes, Sir, it was of an official character. He went on to say that it was important that the Report should be laid before this House, that it was very improper if three Members of the House were sent out by the Government that they should not lay their Report before the House. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. That would create an intolerable situation. If his view prevailed it would be impossible to send any Member of the House of Commons on any mission of a confidential character. I think he will agree that that would be an unfortunate position.
    Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend is raising a very important issue. When the delegation were sent out, were they told that they were expected to undertake certain inquiries and that their Report would be confidential?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: No, they were not informed that they should make a Report. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Lord

    2033
    President of the Council said quite clearly that they were not being asked to make a Report.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why were they sent?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: They were sent out on a good-will mission in order to report to my right hon. Friend personally their views on conditions in the Island and what they thought should be the form of the future government.
    Mr. A. Edwards: Is the Minister suggesting that the report of this mission is of such a character that this Committee cannot see it?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I did not suggest anything of the kind. As a matter of fact, there are three Reports and not one Report. They were reports to the Secretary of State and not to the House of Commons, and quite obviously a Report to the. Secretary of State is couched in quite different terms from what it would be if it were to be laid before the House of Commons and open to the public.
    Mr. A. Bevan: This is an astonishing device.
    Mr. Glenvill Hall: This is rather important. We have already had from the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) a resumé of what at least one of the Reports contains. If the reports were confidential were the members of the delegation informed that they were not to show other hon. Members their conclusions?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: That was not the position. I think the Prime Minister explained, in reply to a Question, that they were at liberty to show their reports if they thought fit, but there is a good deal of difference between showing a report to a colleague in the House of Commons and publishing it to the world.
    Mr. Driberg: Could copies of the Reports be placed in the Library?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I think it would be better if the position were left as it is at the present time.
    Captain Peter Macdonald: Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State or the Lord President of the Council told the House of Commons that hon. Members themselves were authorised
    2034
    to show those Reports to hon. Members—I have seen two of them—and, at the same time, that when a Debate took place in the House they were at liberty to tell the House of Commons what their recommendations were? In fact, in the Debate they did tell the House, and it is in Hansard, what their recommendations were.
    Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of procedure. If quotations were made from a document, Mr. Williams, are we not entitled to ask for the document to be laid? The difficulty is that an official delegation is sent out; references have been made to its Report and at the same time it is not official, from the point of view of getting papers laid.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think the answer is that, if a direct quotation is made it would have to be laid, but that when it is a case of making a speech based upon summaries of opinions expressed in it, papers need not be laid.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Has not the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) already informed the House of Commons in almost precise language what one of the reports contained? I know the Chair is in a difficulty, because this is a most unusual situation. Three Members of the House of Commons were sent out as an official delegation to make a Report to the Minister who sent them out. Reference was then made to the Reports that they have given to the Minister and yet we are not to see the Reports—well, some Members have seen them and some have not. This is creating a muddle in Parliament.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: It appears that the possibility of our seeing the report depends upon whether we happen to be, personally, friendly with the Members concerned. If those documents are available to anyone, they ought to be available to all.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: May I say that I had a particular friend in this delegation and I have seen a copy of the Report. I do not know how far this is a private document and how far it is not. All I know is that the individual Member left the Debate with a complete sense of frustration and said: "For Heaven's sake have a look at it yourself." I am in a difficult position.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think we are all in rather a difficult position. Under Rule 154,
    "If a Minister of the Crown quotes in the House a despatch or other State paper which has not been presented to the House, he ought to lay it on the Table."
    In the present instance we have this document which certain Members have seen and others have not. It is, more or less, an official report to the Minister and it is very difficult for me at the present moment to lay it down that it should be laid, but it does seem to be in the same position as a lot of other private documents, unless the Minister proposes to quote from it. If he proposes to quote at some length, the position is different.
    Mr. G. Nicholson: Are we entirely correct in saying it is an official document? Is it not something in the nature of a traveller's letter? As far as I can understand it, the members of the delegation were not under any obligation to submit anything in writing at all. They could have done it by word of mouth.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I said it was more or less an official document. It is hard to define absolutely what is an official document. I do not think I need go further on that point, but I would like to say that if the exact words of a document are officially quoted, then it should be laid on the Table. But some reference to a document by Members, as part of the argument of their speech, is very different.
    Mr. A. Bevan: I fully appreciate your difficulty in the matter, Mr. Williams. I realise that it is not possible for you to say that this comes under the heading of a State paper and therefore ought to be laid on the Table of the House. It is a unique situation as far as I know. Three Members of this House were sent out to Newfoundland and came home and presented a report to the Minister. I am using the word in a broad sense since they made three reports to the Minister. They then made some references to their reports in the House and some Members have seen them. The Parliamentary Secretary has just informed us that certain of the recommendations contained in the report have been carried out but we do not quite know what they are.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I did not say they had been carried out.
    Mr. Bevan: Well, despatches have been sent about them. This oblique way of making reference to a document which is half-hidden and half-public shows the undesirability of the whole procedure. Would it not be much simpler, and in the public interest, if the documents were laid on the Table for all hon. Members to inspect? Surely there is no State secret about them, because they have been quoted from in the House and shown to hon. Members. How, then, is it improper to lay them on the Table of the House so that we can all have the same advantages as some hon. Members now possess?
    Mr. W. J. Brown: On a point of Order. Would it be in Order for me to move to report Progress, in order to give the Government the opportunity of considering the despatches further? We are asked to vote £850 but how can I, not having been allowed to see these documents, make up my mind whether we have had £850 worth of value?
    Mr. Deputy-Chairman: No, the hon. Member cannot do so in the middle of a speech.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said the report is half public and half private. I do not think he is giving due consideration to the discretion of Members of the House and, so far as I know no hon. Members have actually quoted from the report. Not that that would affect the case but, as I have said before, the delegation was not asked to make a report when they went out on this particular mission. They were asked to report to the Secretary of State and that is the action which they took. It is true they put their views in writing.
    Mr. Driberg: May I interrupt? Even if the papers cannot be laid, what is the serious objection to placing the reports in the Library, where they would not be accessible to the public but only to Members of this House, upon whose discretion the hon. Gentleman has said he can rely?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: There is no reason why they should be placed there. I do not think we need depart from the procedure followed so far, by which hon. Members have shown their reports to a certain number of their colleagues in the House.
    Mr. Shinwell: That is the very point. We are asked to vote £850 for this mission. Some hon. Members have disclosed the fact that they have seen the reports. Do I understand that my hon. Friend is inclined to agree to the suggestion that copies should be placed in the Library; or is he declining absolutely to allow hon. Members to see reports which are now in writing, which have been presented to the Minister, and have already been discussed in the House and yet asking us to agree to the expenses?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The reports have not been discussed in the House.
    Mr. Shinwell: Then how can my hon. Friend ask this Committee for the funds, if he is not prepared to tell us what was in the reports?
    Hon. Members: Give us a reason.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): I was unable to be here at the start of this discussion, but I gather that hon. Members are under some misapprehension. When I suggested sending out three Members of the House to Newfoundland, I expressly said that I did not propose that there should be any report, and I sent out these Members in order that they might make themselves acquainted with conditions in Newfoundland and in order that we should have hon. Members in the House who had that particular knowledge to assist me—as one who had only been able to make a short voyage to the Island—to see the general picture. I explained that there was no question of making an official report. Members of the delegation were free to give me anything they liked of their impressions, either verbally or in writing. They were free to do exactly as they pleased without being under any of the usual restrictions in visiting another country. The matter was informal, and they duly came back and sent in three accounts. Those were not in any sense official reports. It would be quite improper, from the point of view of the Members concerned, and of those whom they met and talked with on this basis, that, thereafter, these should be made official documents. As I understood at the time, the suggestion of sending out these Members was very generally welcomed and the House was informed that there was no question of the delegation being anything in the nature of a commission making an official report. Therefore
    2038
    the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is quite wrong in thinking that in older to know whether this is a just amount to be spent or not, he must see all the reports, because the object of sending these Members out was not to have an official report.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: They made one.
    Mr. Attlee: That really did not happen. They did not make either an official report or an unofficial report to this House; they did give in writing their observations to me, but that is not an official report at all. The hon. Member based his point on the fact that some money was being spent and that he could not judge it, unless he knew these reports. He would be quite right if a commission had been sent out to make a report, but the delegation was not sent out to make a report. The report they made to me was incidental to their verbal communications to me.
    Mr. Brown: May I put this point? I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that this delegation was not sent out to make a report. The fact that the members have done so, is their responsibility and has nothing to do with us. Suppose one accepts that. Nevertheless, we have the fact that the minds of some Members have been informed by reading that report or reports, whereas the rest of us are completely uninformed, although we are asked to vote this money. I can understand that when one orders goods, the goods may not come up to scratch, but we have never had a sight of the goods.
    Mr. Shinwell: The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman appears to be quite reasonable. It is clear that this delegation was not regarded as official. Still, he must recognise that there were peculiar circumstances which arose after the return of the delegation. They, themselves, asked for a Debate. They intimated to their friends that they were anxious to have a Debate, and they also intimated—this I know personally—that they were anxious to disclose the report or reports submitted to my right hon. Friend. There is no doubt about that. It is well known. Then what happened? They showed the report to certain hon. Members, but other hon. Members, including myself, have not been able to see the report. Why should there be this

    2039
    distinction? All hon. Members are being asked to vote this money. The Government are not going to a few hon. Members who have been privileged to see the report and asking their consent. They are asking the consent of all. Surely, it is reasonable—as reasonable as the explanation which has been given us—that we should say: "If we are to vote this money at any rate put the report in the Library."
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I should like to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. He used the words "informal" and "unofficial." There is this difficulty. It has been said that the reports will not be laid upon the Table and several speakers have said that some hon. Members have been privileged to see the reports, while others have not. I want to ask this question. To what extent is it incumbent on the people who write reports to give copies to any hon. Members who ask for them? The three hon. Members having been sent out to Newfoundland, it is quite right to vote money for their expenses. Nobody grudges that. But reports having been made, is it incumbent on the members of the mission to let their colleagues in the House see those reports?
    Mr. A. Bevan: I raised the general question because it seemed to me that we were becoming involved in the question of laying State papers on the Table. What the right hon. Gentleman has said does influence me at least. If it is the case that the hon. Members who went out on this mission communicated the conversations they had in the places they visited, and the views expressed to them, on the understanding that their reports were confidential to the Minister, that seems to throw an entirely different light on the matter. It would be extremely unfair, when confidences had been obtained, to broadcast them to the world. If the report was intended to be confidential, it seems to me that this Committee cannot now break the confidence of the people who made the report. But I do think that the whole procedure ought to be carefully reviewed.
    Mr. Attlee: I think the Committee is fully seized of the position. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom
    2040
    (Sir A. Southby), it is not incumbent on me to lay down what is the duty of individual Members. I explained that one of the reasons for sending the mission was that we thought that, when they came back, they would be able to help hon. Members to come to a decision on a very difficult and complicated question. I really must leave this point to the discretion of those Members, but I do say, quite definitely and clearly, that this is not an official report that should be laid as a State paper.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Does not the misunderstanding seem to have arisen from the use of the word "report"? The use of the word "report" gives the impression of something official. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "account," which I thought was very suitable, for the information which these visitors to Newfoundland gave to the Government. In those circumstances, these Members have desired to let other Members of the House participate in the information, but the word "report" which has been generally used through this Debate is a total misnomer, and gives a totally wrong impression of the information.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said he was quoting from one of the reports that there was to be a period of 10 years before there was any question of the restoration of self government in Newfoundland. That is not the view of His Majesty's Government. As I said in my speech before Christmas, it is the intention of the Government to take up this question immediately after the war, and in fact to take steps, now, to ascertain the views of the people of Newfoundland, so that they may be in a position to decide for themselves what form of Government they wish to set up. I made it quite clear that we would not intervene in any way so far as their decisions were concerned. It was suggested that some form of convention might be the best means of coming to a decision. There is no justification for the statement that the Government wish to wait 10 years. Then the hon. Member said something with regard to the intelligence and character of the people of Newfoundland. I entirely agree with what he said, and I believe we shall be able to arrive at some means by which they shall have self-government and shall be

    2041
    able to make Newfoundland a happy country under their own rule. He also made an offer to speak in the camps in North Scotland. I should like to consider his offer, but this is a question which concerns more political parties than one. He also raised the question of the loans made to this country. I should like to make it quite clear to the Committee that the loans made are the surplus of the Newfoundland revenue, and they can be recalled at any time.
    Mr. Maxton: How did they manage to get a surplus?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The reason why they have a surplus at the present moment, is due to the fact that a great deal of work has been done on American and Canadian bases.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Minister himself seems to be getting rather wide of the question.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I would like to assure the Committee that the loans can be repaid at notice.
    Dr. Russell Thomas: How does the surplus come here—in what form? Do they send their goods?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft) whether we were taking any action on the views expressed by the three Members, and I can give an assurance that we are. I should like to turn for a moment to the question of the Empire Societies War Hospitality Committee. The Committee was formed at the outbreak of the war to co-ordinate welfare work and hospitality for men and women in the Forces from the Dominions and Colonies. The work of the Committee has greatly increased since the outbreak of war, and a number of clubs have been established in various parts of the country. An extra £5,500 in addition to the £24,000 already provided for these services is now required. This Committee is under the Chairmanship of Lord Milne. The accounts of the Societies are not audited by the Government but they are audited by outside accountants.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved:
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of pay-
    2042
    ment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for sundry Dominion services, including certain grants in aid, and for expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in Eire, and for a grant in aid to Eire in respect of compensation to transferred officers."

CLASS II.

  DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE (SOUTH AFRICAN HIGH COMMISSION TERRI- TORIES).
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,800, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the development of the resources of the South African High Commission Territories and the welfare of their peoples."

CLASS V

  SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the payment of Supplementary Pensions to certain persons in receipt of Old Age Pensions or Widows' Pensions."
  Mr. Tinker: I want to raise a question on this Vote. I have had a letter from the secretary of the Old Age Pensioners' Association, which says:
  "Several cases have arisen in which a disability pension has been granted and divided between a man and his wife, and in assessing the supplementary pensions, only that portion granted to the man is being disregarded by the Assistance Board, the amount granted to the wife being treated as resources. This, therefore, appears to contravene the Act.…"
  I have looked at the Act and I am not quite clear what has happened. Therefore, I gave notice to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that I would raise this point so that she could make the position clear to the old age pensioners and to the Assistance Board. On Wednesday we had a Debate on supplementary pensions and a promise from the Minister of Health that, in certain cases, where there was hardship, where arrears had not been paid, they could be taken into account by the Assistance Board.
  Mr. Mathers: When the Debate, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has referred, was proceeding, the question of accelerating the determination of the

  2043
  supplementary pensions was raised. The Minister did not appear to be able to say that this work of acceleration would be carried out quickly and claimed that that did not come within his province, as it was a matter for the Assistance Board. Arising out of the strong opinions that were expressed, I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might, unofficially, make some representations to the Board along that line. Can the hon. Lady say anything about that to-day?
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: There is another aspect of this question. I wonder whether the hon. Lady has been informed of the difficulties in mining areas where old age pensioners, receiving supplementary allowances, may express a willingness to billet lads who are being directed into the pits, but fear that if they provide them with accommodation their pensions will be adjusted accordingly? These old people may receive a shilling or two benefit from having a lad billeted with them and the Determination of Needs Acts says that all income must be taken into account. In canvassing one big mining area recently two women called on many people during the day but found only three who would accept billetees. These officials said that, if they could have assured the old age pensioners that their pensions or supplementary allowances would not be interfered with they would have been able to find 30 homes for billetees. This matter concerns the hon. Lady's Department, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Fuel and Power and is causing anxiety to the old people. This Vote covers the issue I am raising and perhaps the hon. Lady can say something which will help to solve the problem and so find additional billets for these trainees.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), it is quite clear that the disregard is limited to £1 for a disability pension. The hon. Gentleman has already put to me a case of a husband and wife living together in which there has been an allowance to the wife in addition to the disability pension. He asked whether that could be taken into account. The legal position is quite clear. The £1 disability is disregarded but nothing else. Therefore, any extra allowance given to
  2044
  the wife, as the Act stands at present, could not be taken in account in connection with what we call the statutory disregard.
  As regards the point about acceleration I think my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear in the Adjournment Debate on Wednesday that the responsibility did lie with the Assistance Board. I know they are doing tremendous work. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) asked me if, without official responsibility, my right hon. and learned Friend could, in pleasant conversation, say to the Assistance Board how much we would appreciate acceleration. Well, I think the hon. Member will realise that what has been said in Debate will reach the ears of the Board. They are very anxious to accelerate these inquiries as much as possible, so that people can get the extra amount. Hon. Members who perhaps do not know all the details, perhaps do not always appreciate the work which has been done and the rate at which it is being carried out.
  On the subject of billeting, Questions have been answered in this House on several occasions. As the law stands all income is taken into account. During the 4½ years in which all sorts of evacuees, children and adults, have been billeted up and down the country we have been able to overcome most of the difficulties as to what is exactly income and what is not. I think we can leave it to the discretion of those who are assessing to see if there is any sum that would be considered as actual profit. As I have said, all income must be taken into account although I realise the point is that if a sum is being paid for billeting there is the question of how much is paid for food and the cost of keeping the individual and of how much might be put down as extra.
  Mr. E. Walkden: Will the hon. Lady, through her officers, convey to the old folks the kind of assurance which she has given me to-day? I think billets will be made available if these old people can feel the assurance that I feel after hearing her explanation.
  Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Member can bring to me any cases where people have had persons billeted on them and have suffered in this way, I will look into them.
  Mr. Walkden: That is very fair.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the payment of Supplementary Pensions to certain persons in receipt of Old Age Pensions or Widows' Pensions."

CLASS VI

  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants, grants-in-aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and improvement of breeding, etc., of live-stock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing; fishery organisation, research and development, control of diseases of fish, etc., and sundry other services including certain remanet subsidy payments."

CLASS VI

  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,520, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education, research and marketing, expenses in respect of regulation of agricultural wages; certain grants-in-aid, and remanet subsidy payments."

CLASS VI

  STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the State Management Districts, including the salaries of the central office, and the cost of provision and management of licensed premises."

CLASS X

  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (WAR SERVICES)
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment
  2046
  during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries."

  MINISTRY OF AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Aircraft Production."

  MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Fuel and Power."

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WAR SERVICES)
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during, the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Health."

  MINISTRY OF HOME SECURITY
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on they 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Home Security."

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply, including the expenses of the Royal Ordnance Factories."

  MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of War Transport."

  MINISTRY OF WORKS (WAR SERVICES)
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the cost of the war service of the Ministry of Works."

  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND (WAR SERVICES)
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the cost of the war services of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland."

CLASS II

  IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,916 be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for certain salaries and expenses of the Imperial War Graves Commission, including purchase of land in the United Kingdom and a grant-in-aid."

CLASS VIII

  SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for superannuation and other non-effective annual allowances, additional allowances, gratuities, compassionate allowances and supplementary pensions in respect of civil employment."
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Before we vote this £50,000 I want to ask for the redress of a grievance. The grievance that I want to see redressed is one to which I have often drawn attention. It is the grievance of civil servants being for long periods of time on an unestablished basis and not being regarded as pensionable. I raised a case the other day where a man had been employed for 53 years continuously in the Government service and was now being retired without a penny of pension. When I raised the matter with the appropriate Minister I got the reply that he was not responsible and that the matter was one for the Treasury. I now raise it in a general way, because this Vote is pertinent to the subject.
  Mr. Messer: He had not a regular job.
  Mr. Brown: No. At the end of 53 years he was still temporary and unestablished. I raised another case recently of a messenger in the War Office who, after about 45 years' service, was denied
  2048
  establishment because he was not employed at the headquarters of the War Office. There is a common impression that when one joins the public service of Great Britain one automatically becomes permanent and established and can look forward to a pension at the end of his career. That impression is largely responsible for the widespread desire on the part of the uninformed to enter Government employment, and many people enter Government service on that ground alone. But out of 350,000 civil servants, before the war, 112,000 remain unestablished however long they stay in the public service, and the result is that day after day we hear of men going out after long, continuous periods of service, in some cases over 50 years, but still being regarded as ineligible for pension.
  The Chairman (Major Milner): Is the hon. Member speaking about established or non-established civil servants?
  Mr. Brown: What I am asking is this. I understand I have a right to ask for a redress of grievances which are related to the Estimate. I am asking for the redress of a superannuation grievance which I am trying to explain. One civil servant out of every three is denied superannuation, however long his period of service in Government employment.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member ought to raise the question on the main Vote. It is not appropriate to raise it here.
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps in the circumstances I can ask this. The Vote represents an increase of £50,000 over what it was originally estimated would be required. Is that increase the result of any change of policy on the part of the Treasury in respect of superannuation? Has the Treasury now seen the error of its ways? Has the instinct of compassion reinforced the desire for justice? Is the interest of the taxpayer still so predominant that what I have complained of will continue to go on, or does this increase represent a change of policy on the part of the Government from which I can derive some hope, and can convey some hope to the 112,000 civil servants who are wrongfully denied superannuation? I know that that has all been out of Order, but I hope I have got the point in.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I will try to reply to the hon. Member and yet remain within the rules of Order. This Supplementary Estimate does not denote any change of policy on the part of the Government. It is merely necessitated by the fact that it is extremely difficult to calculate in advance the number of persons who will retire from the Civil Service during any particular year. The unfortunate accounting officer whose duty it is to try to make an estimate of this is invariably faced with the difficulty of providing either too much or too little. This is an occasion when he has provided too little, and therefore I am called upon to put this Supplementary Estimate before the Committee. I am sorry that there is no opportunity for discussing the interesting problem to which the hon. Member has referred.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for superannuation and other non-effective annual allowances, additional allowances, gratuities, compassionate allowances and supplementary pensions in respect of civil employment."

CLASS I

  TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPART- MENTS
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,930, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, and the salaries and expenses of certain Ministers appointed for special duties."
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: In this Vote we are being asked to sanction the creation of a Minister of Reconstruction, and to approve the appointment of Lord Woolton to that office. It is not very easy for us in this Committee, and still less for the general public and the country at large, to judge how far this represents any real change in the attitude of the Government to this question or how far it is merely an attempt to allay criticism which has been steadily gathering head at the Government's handling of the whole of these problems. I doubt whether the Debate to-day will
  2050
  throw much light on this question, because it is not a matter of words but of deeds, and those deeds will only come into observation a considerable time after the Debate has concluded. Some people take exception to the Vote on the ground that no Ministry of Reconstruction has been brought into being. Other people are worried as to whether the powers that are being conferred upon the new Minister are sufficiently defined or adequate for the purpose. I am not greatly troubled about either of these questions. The real question in my mind is how far the Government mean business in their avowed intention of laying the foundations of reconstruction now while the war is still in progress and how far they are merely seeking to gain time and postpone decisions on all the major issues until the war is over.
  So far as the powers of the Minister and so far as the appointment of a Ministry are concerned, it is quite clear to me that whatever action the Minister of Reconstruction takes is bound to affect most intimately the Treasury, the Ministry of Health, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Foreign Office, and, indeed, all the principal Ministries of the Government. In those circumstances the powers conferred upon the Minister could not in any case be wide enough to enable him to take action on all those matters without the agreement of his colleagues dealing specifically with those matters in their Ministries. Further, however large the Ministry that might be brought into being in conjunction with the Minister, it could never reduplicate all the staffs of all those Ministers with whom he will be interfering. Unless it were so he would be much better advised to find out the facts and get the position from the members of those staffs who are already in being. That being so, in my view the real Minister of Reconstruction, in the sense in which the House and the country want to have one, cannot be this particular Minister but must be the Prime Minister himself. It is he alone who can really co-ordinate the efforts of all the members of the Government, and it is he alone who in the ultimate resort must create the drive that gets the preparations for reconstruction brought into being. Just as the Prime Minister delegates to my right hon. Friend, who, I understand, is to reply, his functions of Prime Minister when he is away, or unhappily is prevented by illness from attend-

  2051
  ing to his duties, just as he delegates to the Foreign Secretary his functions as Leader of the House of Commons, so it is not unnatural that, his mind being so largely devoted to the prosecution of the war, he should devolve his duties as the Minister who must be finally charged with preparing for the future to a particular Minister, and that is really what he is doing in creating the Minister and appointing Lord Woolton to that post.
  If I were to be asked in advance what would be the position when most of the matters concerning the Minister of Reconstruction would be of that kind where his views have to be carried out by some other Ministry, let us say for example the Ministry of Agriculture, it is clear that the result will depend upon the personality of the Minister in question. That brings us to the personality of Lord Woolton himself. The work that Lord Woolton has done at the Ministry of Food has won the approval of the House, and to an astonishing degree of the country as a whole. He has shown himself to be a man of decision, one who has never made a promise until he was sure of fulfilling it and one who carried out in a way agreeable to the country the very difficult and arduous duties of his office. That is all to the good. Therefore, he starts with a good record behind him and the approval of this House and of the country for the work that he has already done. The job to which he has now been appointed is a much more difficult one. It is not a job which can be put into a watertight compartment. It is a job that brings him not, I hope, in conflict, but in close contact with nearly all other members of the Government. He cannot in the least foresee, and I do not imagine that anyone in the Government can, how far his great success at the Ministry of Food will be repeated as Minister of Reconstruction. We can only wish him well in his task and hope that he will bring to bear his undoubtedly great powers in helping the Government to resolve many of the exceedingly intricate questions.
  What are the questions which really have to be faced? I am aware that it is not the wish of the Committee, even if it be in Order, to go into great detail as to the work that lies in front of the Minister of Reconstruction, but I think I should be in Order, and I think it
  2052
  would be the wish of the Committee, if I took a brief look at what are the real tasks in front of him. There are three major points. The first point is that the basis of our post-war life must be broad enough in finance, in questions of the land and the mines, in the question of transport and in the question of manufacture. In finance we have the lamentable story of the events that took place in the inter-war years, when the whole economy of the country was sacrificed to a financial orthodoxy which deliberately made it a contractionist instead of an expansionist economy. With regard to the land and the mines, I am not going to raise to-day the point of view which may separate those on these benches from those mostly sitting on the benches opposite, but I think we must all agree that an attitude must be taken toward the land which sets aside individual prejudice or prerogative in so far as they conflict with the best use of the land for the country as a whole. The same must apply to the valuable material which lies below the surface of the land, whether it be coal or any other of the sub-surface properties. The policy of reconstruction must be so devised that the land and the mines be used for the benefit of the country in the best possible way. How that should be done may divide us, but some means must be found of using these great national assets for the public benefit.
  I need not elaborate the matter when we come to the question of transport. During the war, for the purposes of the war, we have said that individual rights or privileges must be subordinated to the successful prosecution of the war, and I believe that the country will take the view that these rights and privileges after the war must equally be subordinated to making the best use of the transport facilities of the country in order to serve the needs of the nation. Finally, when it comes to manufacture and industry of all kinds, whether we are to have public or private enterprise or whether we are to have some of both, as many on both sides of the House realise will probably be the case, it must be, as the Home Secretary once said, enterprise, and it must be designed in the interests of the public as a whole and not merely in order to bring profit or employment, because the nation must come first in peace equally as in war. That is the first

  2053
  point—the basis of our post-war life in all matters must be broad enough to carry the superstructure of an expanding economy.
  The second point is that our internal economy and our external economy must not be allowed to inter-act adversely on one another. That rule was certainly not followed in the inter-war years. I have already mentioned the contraction of our finance. That arose out of the desire to affect our external relations in the matter of finance. We freed ourselves from that in the course of time, and we must on no account limit and contract our internal financial position in order to meet some external financial demand. A way must be found by which we can live financially at peace and in friendly relations with foreign nations without in any way imperilling our internal financial position. When we come to apply that to the question of the land and, in fact, to the production and price-fixing of raw materials as a whole, I see no way out but that the Government should remain the purchaser of raw materials. There are two points of view that seem to conflict: that we must allow our agriculture to continue to produce a considerable part of the needs of our country, and that we want to purchase from abroad a great deal of our food at the lowest price at which we can buy it in the market. I see no solution of that problem if the prices of the two sets of food are to be the same. But if the Government buy the external and the internal food, but not necessarily at the same price, much as they are doing during the war, and pool the products at a price which is such that they do not suffer a loss on the result, it seems to me that that is the only solution which will achieve the double purpose.
  I hope that that will be the direction in which the Minister of Reconstruction and the Government will direct their minds. When it comes to some of our own products we may have the same position inverted. It may be, to take the example of coal, that there will have to be a different price for coal which we consume ourselves from that at which we export. That may apply to other products. It is not, of course, a new departure in world economy, though it will have to be carefully worked out in this country. It may raise difficulties in the United States, for instance, where that question is dealt
  2054
  with in certain instances by the imposition of a tariff.
  Mr. Molson: The export coal may be sold at a lower price than the inland price.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Yes, it might be one or the other. I am not at this moment saying so, but that is certainly what I had in mind, and that is what is being done with many products in other countries. It may be that that is a desirable process. The point I am making is that we must not necessarily have our internal and external economy so bound up together that the price of one article must be the same internally and externally.
  The third special issue is our proper attitude to the human beings in our country. The people are not merely a means to an end; they are that end itself. Our people do not exist in order that there may be production. Production is carried out in order that our people may exist and enjoy in their life the full heritage which is open to them. May I put it in this way? Our people do not live to work; they work to live. That aspect must never be lost sight of. With that in view, in the first place, the State has to secure that our man and woman power must be utilised to the full extent in the best possible way. In the old days men and women could employ themselves. Those days are very largely gone for the bulk of mankind. Men and women have very little power to employ themselves. They nearly all have to be employed by somebody else. In the nineteenth century that was the private employer. Even those days to some extent—and I do not want to raise an issue between the two sides in the Committee—are passing away. The private employer, even with the best intentions, cannot undertake that every man and woman shall be fully employed. It therefore rests ultimately with the Government and the State to make sure that they are. I do not want to pursue that further or I should be going beyond what is legitimate on this Vote. I only state it in those general terms.
  That does not exhaust the whole question of the human beings in this country because there are the children who need to be educated, there are the old who need to be cared for in their old age, and there are that vast number who have fallen out owing to ill-health or some other mis-

  2055
  fortune which prevents them taking their full economic share in the life of the community. The reason we have to change what were the traditions of the 19th century and the early part of this century with regard to these people is that we are a civilised and a Christian country. We cannot afford to have our old people or those who have fallen under in the race of life sinking below a standard which the rest of us regard as essential. The reason we have to look after our children is that they are the future citizens of the country and that it is to them that we look to uphold the traditions of our country. I do not propose to expand these rather general observations, but I would sum them up by saying that these are the fundamental matters, as I see them, in reconstruction.
  We ask the Government, in view of the stage of the war at which we have now arrived—none of us can foresee, of course, when the war will end, it may be fairly soon or go on longer than any of us think likely at the present time—that the Minister of Reconstruction shall make up his mind and get decisions from the Government in order that, when the war does come to an end, there may be no delay in putting those decisions into effect. Secondly, we ask it in order that other people such as local authorities, and, to a certain extent, ordinary business firms, may have an idea of what is in the mind of the Government and may attune their policy in accordance therewith. I will not go into details. There are many matters, at home and abroad, on which decisions are essential if progress is to be made towards the future reconstruction. What I have said indicates something of the task which I see is being entrusted to Lord Woolton. It is a task which will require all his judgment and will demand all his driving force and his power of reconciliation inside the Government itself. We may not expect decisions which involve party controversy, but they must be decisions, and there must be give-and-take in the Government if decisions which are to operate after the war are to be made. I wish him well. I do not envy him his task. I know that he will need all his personality and powers if he is to bring this task to successful fruition.
  Mr. Molson: I find myself so largely in agreement with the
  2056
  sentiments that have been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman that I feel it should be of good augury to the new Minister of Reconstruction, if it is, as I am sure it is, his hope and aspiration that the national unity which has existed during the war shall be carried on into the difficult time of reconstruction after the peace. This modest Supplementary Estimate indicates the modest set-up of the new arrangement, and it is right that there shall be no intention to create some great super Department to go again over all the work which has been done in each of the administrative Departments concerned with each branch of reconstruction. Reconstruction can best be undertaken by those Ministers and Departments which have the day-to-day administration of these matters, and I am sure that it would be far beyond the compass of any Department, as well as being a fruitful cause of delay, if there had been set up a single Department which was supposed to deal with all branches of reconstruction. As I understand the position, and as it has been explained by the Minister himself, it is much more his intention to try to keep an eye on the general picture of reconstruction and to make certain that each of the Departments makes its own appropriate contribution to the future edifice. I am glad to have noted that Lord Woolton puts full employment first. What may perhaps divide this Committee, as to what should be the degree of State interference in any particular industry, is very small compared with the realisation we all have that the future strength, prosperity and happiness of this country depend upon making the fullest and most scientific use of all the resources that we have.
  It will, therefore, be especially important that the Minister of Reconstruction shall apply his mind to the degree of development that there should be in, for example, agriculture and coal mining, and in each of the different industries.
  If we take for instance, agriculture, coal, iron and steel and shipping, different Ministers are responsible for the day-to-day administration of these matters, and for planning what is to be done to maintain those industries or services in prosperity at the end of the war. It is also vitally important that there shall be someone at the head of what I may call a great economic staff who will take a strategic view of

  2057
  the whole, and will indicate to the Minister of Agriculture, say, what degree of self-sufficiency in food production he believes will be appropriate, without unduly sacrificing the interests of our industrial export industries. Take again, the case of coal. There is a Minister who is, it is true, responsible for fuel and power, but it will also be extremely important that, in planning the reconstruction of the fuel and power industries in this country, the interests of our Mercantile Marine shall be borne in mind. Anything which might result in a great reduction of our exports of coal would have very serious consequences to our Mercantile Marine, and would almost certainly result in a great increase in the cost of importation of foodstuffs from overseas.
  I have given these examples in order to illustrate what some of my friends and I are anxious to have reassurance upon. We recognise that Lord Woolton is not himself directly concerned with the initiation of the reconstruction plans, which are in the hands of each departmental Minister, but we are anxious to be assured by the Government that the general reconstruction of the country is being considered as a whole. I trust that we shall not be told that we must wait for decisions to be taken, either in our Dominions or, even less, in foreign countries. It is essential that we should have the courage to take the initiative, while no doubt being willing to make any necessary modifications in our plans, in order to have the maximum international co-operation, and it would be fatal if we were unwilling to give a lead or, as was indicated by the right hon. Gentleman just now, if we were to allow our own internal economics to be unduly affected by overseas interests.
  I would like to pass to the next point. Vital as it is there shall be reconstruction of industries, there is also a vital need that, at the end of this war, we shall have a plan for the physical redevelopment and reconstruction of this country. There, again, it appears to fall within the ambit of four, or even five different departmental Ministers. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning has its special and original contribution to make, but it will not be able to embark upon a national plan until it has had guidance from the Board of Trade as to where industry, in-
  2058
  cluding new industry, is likely to be located after the war. When the Ministry of Town and Country Planning has agreed upon a plan, it will then be the responsibility of the Minister of Health to see that the houses are provided. We have been informed by Lord Woolton that the Minister of Works will be responsible for the technical aspect of all buildings throughout the country. There, again, we find that Lord Woolton is in a specially responsible position to ensure the cordial co-operation and co-ordination of these Ministers and Ministries.
  In the third place, there is the whole question of our social services. I have put this last, not because they are not important, but because the only way in which it will be possible to provide the finance for these costly essential services is that we have full employment and are making the utmost use of all our natural resources. Again, it will be, as I see it, Lord Wool-ton's special responsibility to ensure that the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health, and any other Ministers who may be concerned, shall work together in the preparation of the different plans. I should like to make a suggestion to the Government. Knowing how heavily burdened the time-table of this House is, I think it would be extremely useful if, in the course of the next six months, we had an arranged series of Debates upon a number of different aspects of reconstruction. Let me give an example of what I have in mind. Hon. Friends of mine in all parts have been pressing for a postwar plan for agriculture. We have now made this progress, that the Minister of Agriculture has at last been given permission by the War Cabinet to enter into discussions with the agricultural industry as to what those plans are to be. Almost the only other natural resource which we have in this country is coal. There, alas, we have not yet even taken that first step forward which has been taken in the case of agriculture, and I feel that a week or a fortnight after a Debate upon agriculture it would be most desirable to have a Debate upon what can be done to prepare a general plan for the integration of coal and gas and electricity and all forms of heat and power. Then I would suggest that a little while after that there should be a similar Debate upon the iron and steel industry, itself so entirely dependent upon the prosperity of the coal industry. In this way I believe that gradually, week

  2059
  by week and month by month, it might be possible for this Committee to survey in detail and in general the whole picture of our reconstruction. That, as I see it, is the special responsibility which rests upon Lord Woolton—not to concern himself overmuch with the details of any particular matter, but, rather, to ensure that each one of the Departments makes its appropriate contribution to the work of the whole.
  In conclusion, may I associate myself in particular with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman about the use of land after this war. Many of us are deeply concerned that there is still no announcement on the part of the Minister of Town and Country Planning that there will be put into effect such reforms of the tenure of land as will ensure that the physical reconstruction of this country will become possible.
  The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward): I am aware that this is the first time that this Estimate has been before the House and that consequently considerable latitude should be given to hon. Members, but the hon. Member should not deal with matters which suggest legislation.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid, Sir Lambert, that you were not present when my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) made a very able speech and presented a number of the principles underlying reconstruction policy. He dealt with land, coal and other matters involving legislation, and it is quite clear, I suggest with great respect, that if a speech of that kind—a very necessary speech—is allowed and subsequent speakers are to be precluded from expressing views on similar lines it is an unfair procedure.
  The Temporary Chairman: As the hon. Member says, I was not in the Committee when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) spoke. As I said, I think considerable latitude should be allowed, but that restraint should be exercised with regard to what Members say. Otherwise, the Debate will transcend all bounds of Order.
  Mr. Shinwell: Surely it is quite clear, without entering into details, that the ap-
  2060
  pointment of a Minister of Reconstruction, because that is the issue before us, itself denotes legislation. It can denote nothing else, and clearly in discussing whether or not we are to agree to the appointment of a Minister of Reconstruction we must discuss the broad outline of the policy he is to present to the country?
  The Temporary Chairman: I agree with the truth of the hon. Member's remarks, but I still think that restraint should be exercised with regard to the latitude allowed in the Debate.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does that mean that as the Debate proceeds future speakers will not be allowed to refer to land, as to whether land should be under public control, or to agriculture, as the hon. Gentleman did so refer? Are we to confine ourselves purely and simply to the functions of this Ministry here in London without reference to what the Ministry has been set up for?
  The Temporary Chairman: Certainly an hon. Member can refer to land, but not in too great detail.
  Mr. Molson: I will try to keep within your Ruling, Sir Lambert, but with great respect I would point out that the particular function, as we understand it, of the Minister of Reconstruction is to make certain that one Minister makes his special contribution in time to enable another Minister to make his contribution. What I was venturing to suggest was that the Minister of War Transport and the Minister of Health will have their special constructional work to do at the end of this war, and it is therefore vitally important that the Minister of Town and Country Planning shall have made his contribution in order that there may be a national plan within the framework of which other Departments will make their special contributions. As I understand the position Lord Woolton's special responsibility is to bring his colleagues together and to ensure that they agree upon a policy. So without referring unduly to the legislation which may result from it I will conclude by saying that I feel that reconstruction is not likely to make any very great progress until the Government as a whole have agreed upon some alternative to the Uthwatt proposals which will enable a general national plan to be prepared and put into effect.
  Mr. Shinwell: When, round about three months ago, the Prime Minister appointed Lord Woolton to the post of Minister of Reconstruction that decision met with a warm welcome in this House and in the country. It was assumed that as Lord Woolton had made a success of his activities at the Food Ministry he was, having regard to other considerations, a suitable person to grapple with the intricate and complex problems associated with reconstruction. Of course, Lord Woolton was a success at the Food Ministry, but he was largely a success there, first, because he had an excellent staff and excellent advisers, but also because we had prepared our food policy in war-time before war began. Indeed, the foundations of our war-time food policy were begun as far back as 1935. That is the moral, and a very important moral indeed. If we are to succeed in formulating, and that is only one aspect of the problem, and of applying, which is an even more important aspect, a reconstruction policy, two important principles must be kept constantly in mind. One is that there must be a broad, underlying conception of the picture we intend to enclose in the framework of the post-war world. The second is that we must prepare well in advance. In the sphere of post-war reconstruction we cannot afford to improvise.
  It is true, and we are all very conscious of it, that there is frequently a public clamour for speeding up reconstruction policy, for example, as regards our social services, education, housing, the questions comprised in the Beveridge proposals, and the like. One can understand this. It is very natural. The people of the country are apprehensive. They reflect upon the unprecedented depression that confronted the country in the inter-war years. But important as it is to prepare and apply proposals that relate to social security, it is still more important to prepare the foundations in industry, in the use of our productive resources, in the use of our credit facilities, in the use and direction of our land, of our coal resources and the like; it is more important to decide in that regard what is to be done, so that our social security schemes should be permanent in character. I believe that to be fundamental even at the expense and the risks involved of delaying proposals of a social security character. It is better that we should start in the right way, it is
  2062
  better that we should lay strong foundations, because if we fail in that we shall be deluding the people whom we intend to provide with social benefits. After the last war those in authority led the people of this country up the garden. The people suffered for that long years afterwards. The effects have been detected even in the war effort to-day, although I cannot go into that now.
  Therefore, we must see that the proper foundations are laid and the correct approach adopted; and that whatever is done is related to our productive resources, to our minimum needs, to our international, economic and political relations, and, fundamentally, to the desire of all Members, without exception—I believe this to be the truth, in spite of party differences—to promote the highest possible standard of living for the people of this country. That is the sole purpose of this Debate and of all our reconstruction Debates. If we are not concerned about raising the standard of living of our people, what is the use of appointing a Minister of Reconstruction? We could go on in the same old way as in the interwar years, adopting the old devices, and no doubt we could sort things out in a higgledy-piggledy fashion when this war is over, some people getting too much and a large number getting too little. We can go on wasting production, with the wrong use of land and the wrong use of our resources. That was our old system; we cannot afford it in future. Our objective must be raising the standard of living of the people of this country, and assisting to raise the standard of living of the people in the Colonies and, so far as is necessary, in the Dominions; and, for that matter, throughout the world. I doubt whether we can raise the standard of living in this country without concerning ourselves about the raising of the standard of living of the people the world over. If we are to depart from the expedients which dogged our footsteps in the interwar years with such disadvantage, we must adopt unorthodox methods.
  Unorthodox methods do not necessarily imply nationalisation and public utility methods on the one hand, or private enterprise on the other. But they do mean that in all matters pertaining to social, economic and industrial policy there must be State direction. The State must determine, on broad lines, what is to be the

  2063
  economic policy of the country. That cannot be left to individual manufacturers, individual producers, individual entrepreneurs, or even individual workers. That is the essential thing. Whether some industries should be nationalised and some left in the hands of private enterprise is a matter for public decision at a subsequent stage. But there is not the least doubt that throughout the country—on these benches, of course and on those benches opposite—there is a growing recognition that some of our national services may require to be publicly owned, because they are now mature and they lend themselves to national ownership, and they are indispensable from the standpoint of the public weal. [Interruption.] Someone just behind me rather impishly said, "They cease to provide profit." Let us discard all those petty considerations; they do not matter in the least. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do."] If you want to have your political fight, have it: all I am concerned with is getting something for the people of this country when the war is over, and I do not care hew it is done.
  I believe that the way to get these things is to make very big changes in our economic and industrial system. But let us examine it and get as rapid an approach to the solution of our problems as we can. For a moment I set aside the question of whether it should be nationalisation or private enterprise. Let us concentrate on the objective. If we are fully agreed on the objective, and determine not to fail in the application of that objective, we shall reach the solution. Some of us may have to discard some of our ideas, and some hon. Members opposite may have to discard some of their ideas. Some may have to discard more than others. My own impression is that hon. Members opposite will have to discard more than we shall—at least, I hope so.
  Let us come to the question of Lord Woolton. The reason why we must have a fairly wide Debate to-day is that we cannot appoint a Minister of Reconstruction and ignore the policy on which he is to operate. We provide Lord Woolton and his organisation with a matter of £25,000. The question that immediately emerges is, for what purpose? It is not because we love Lord Woolton's beautiful blue eyes—let us assume that they are
  2064
  blue—but because we are concerned about the appointment of a Minister of Reconstruction in relation to policy. Policy cannot be ignored. What is the issue? It is whether there shall be a Minister of Reconstruction with a small secretariat, involving an expenditure of £25,000, or whether there shall be a Ministry of Reconstruction. I offer my own view at once. It is not unlike the view expressed by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). There seems to be no advantage in setting up a grandiose Ministry of Reconstruction, another Ministry with a huge staff, all getting in each other's way, impinging on the activities of other Departments. Instead of producing speedy results, they may impede them. But there is surely some advantage to be derived from having a Minister of Reconstruction who has at his disposal all the instruments in personnel, and the possibility of research and access to other Departments, who is clothed with full authority, and who can proceed to his task in the full knowledge of the authority he possesses and of the weapons at his disposal. In other words, what we really want is an economic council at the disposal of Lord Woolton, with the best economic experts in the country, the best advisers in the country, men and women fully acquainted with all those problems, who are trying to adapt themselves to those problems, and to escape from the past, recognising that these problems are emerging as other nations are in active competition with us or are certain to be in active competition with us. We do not want to approach this question of reconstruction in an international competitive spirit, but we have to consider the problems of our own people.
  My first criticism is not that Lord Woolton is not persona grata, or that Lord Woolton happens to be a Member of another place. Some Members have suggested that the Minister of Reconstruction ought to be a Member of this House, but as long as the other place is a part of the British Constitution I can see no objection to the Prime Minister appointing someone in the other place as Minister of Reconstruction. I hope some day that the other place will not be a part of our Constitution, and then we shall have the Minister here. The criticism is that Lord Woolton is in no wise differently situated

  2065
  from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio when, before the appointment of a Minister of Reconstruction, he was responsible for reconstruction matters. There has been no change, only a change of personalities, except that my right hon. and learned Friend still remains as a partner, or it may be only as an assistant, to Lord Woolton—one never can tell in these matters. I hope that he remains as a partner; in fact, no self-respecting person, certainly no Member of this House, ought to accept any other position. Lord Woolton, strange as it may seem, is now grappling with the same problems sent up to him by various Departments, reading masses of material, trying to understand the comprehensive nature of the problem which confronts him. That is precisely what my right hon. and learned Friend was doing for a long time. Lord Woolton is also getting in touch with Departments and meeting the War Cabinet. That is precisely what my right hon. and learned Friend was doing. It is not enough.
  In the sense of expert guidance and advice, Lord Woolton is dependent not so much on his own staff because he has not got a staff which is really worth while—although some may be really useful people—as on other Departments. Suppose that Lord Woolton wants to pursue a policy relating to foreign trade—and foreign trade is going to be extremely important after the war—what does he do? He goes to the Board of Trade, and the President tells him what is being done. Suppose Lord Woolton wants to pursue a policy in relation to redundant war factories when the war is over. He goes to the President of the Board of Trade, who tells him that he is negotiating on that subject. Suppose Lord Woolton wants to pursue a policy in relation to trade questions generally. He goes to the Board of Trade, and he discovers that the President is negotiating with people on both sides of industry, the trade unions and the employers. Lord Woolton is every time dependent on the activities of the respective Departments. It may be that he can speed up the activities of those Departments if they are too slow; but that is not a satisfactory method. Lord Woolton should be in this position: not with a grandiose Ministry, but with an expert body of people who thoroughly understand these subjects, and then,
  2066
  having decided a line of policy and gained the approval of the War Cabinet, he should instruct the Departments to carry it out.
  This is the method adopted in relation to the war effort by the War Cabinet. You do not leave it to the War Office. They carry out these things administratively. You do not leave it to the Ministry of Aircraft Production. The War Cabinet decides the policy, and, in the case of reconstruction, a similar policy should be decided upon. I put that to my right hon. Friend opposite. I am sorry he did not hear some remarks I ventured to offer on the principles of reconstruction, but no doubt he will be advised of them and can deal with them at a later stage. In any event, there will be ample opportunities, because the question of reconstruction is coming to the forefront. Apart from the gaining of victory over our enemies, there is no question of greater importance than what is to happen when the war is over.
  I want to fortify what I have said by indicating the difficulties that confront us in relation to post-war industrial and economic matters. Take, for example, the question of housing. It is a social issue, but it is also industrial in character. If we are to decide on an expanded, large-scale scheme of housing—and such is required, and a suggestion was made in another place this week on the subject—we have to concern ourselves with materials, with labour, with land, with finance, and with something more, location of industry. Is there any sense in creating huge housing estates in industrially desolated areas? There is no advantage in that. If we are to deal with the location of industry, you must deal with the question of whether we have productive resources in certain industries, or whether it is worth while producing in certain industries. We have got to deal with a question perhaps more fundamental, too, and about which very little notice is taken—what are we going to produce? It was all very well in the old days saying "We produce coal; there is plenty of it and a demand for it both at home and abroad; with iron and steel and so on," when there were markets for them. How do we know there will be markets for all these things in future? Therefore, we see the inter-relation, the close connection, the liaison, between the various Departments and their activities, and we must bring

  2067
  them all together under a single head—not in detail, not administratively, but in the broad conception, which is what is required.
  My criticism of Lord Woolton, not personal, of course, is that everything depends on the right approach. But it also depends upon whether we have a conception of what is wanted. We must have a picture, not a picture in detail, not filling in the landscape with every stream and the glint of the sun. I do not want that, but we must have a broad conception of what we want. We must have all the facts ready for when the war is over. Have the Government got all the facts at their disposal? For, if they have not, the sooner they get them the better. That is why we want expert economic advisers round the Minister. He can read a great mass of papers, derive much information and build a picture in that way, but it is a long, long process. The essential thing is to get the picture, and what picture do we get of the future? Is it the old picture in that decaying framework? It will not do. This has nothing to do with political divisions. We cannot build up the future of Great Britain on that basis. It cannot be done. Another question involved is what are we going to do with our industries in future? It is a very big subject, and I cannot enlarge upon it, but I feel so keenly that I must ask hon. Members to bear with me.
  Take the question of coal. My friends behind me believe in the nationalisation of the mines. So do I, in principle, but not as we did 30 years ago. Does anyone suppose the nationalisation of the mines, as an isolated act in the future, is going to be of great value? Of course not. So far as coal in the post-war period is concerned, it is no longer a matter of production but a matter of treatment. What are we going to do with the coal when we have produced it? We do not solve the problem by saying, "Low temperature carbonisation or hydrogenation." Some of these theories have been exploded. There have been great advances relating to plastics. We have to be abreast of the times and of what is going on in the United States. I hate to have to say this, but we have to take notice of what was happening in Germany before the war began. They were very
  2068
  clever, scientifically, and highly technical, and although we do not want to take a leaf out of their barbaric notebook let us not be so hoity-toity when it comes to taking a leaf out of their scientific notebook. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is?"] An hon. Member says "Who is?" We can only judge by results, and, if I could detect in our discussions, and in our keenness and passion to get things on the move, any sign that we understand what was going on in America and Germany and elsewhere, believe me, I should be less depressed about the future.
  Take the case of agriculture. Time and again, I have heard the Government criticised—and, Heaven knows, it is not for me to defend the Government, for they have plenty of defenders—because they have not produced an agricultural policy. I venture to ask how can we build up an agricultural policy until we have determined the general range of our economic policy? We simply cannot decide that we are going to produce this, that and the other thing, and build up the price level, until we consider whether we shall continue buying from abroad, to what extent and also what we are going to buy. Then, what about the mercantile marine? We have to consider all these things. In fact, we cannot consider any aspect of our industrial or economic, or, in fact, our social, policy, except in an inter-related sense. We must do that. That is why the broad conception is required. It seems to me to be commonsense.
  I want to leave it at that, and say a word on social issues. I have observed in the House of Commons a trend in the direction of what one may call left-wing economic policy—I will not say left-wing political policy. It is the result of economic pressure and recognition of certain facts presented to us from events abroad, partly as a result of war and so on. We must face that, and I say to the die-hards—and there are still some about, not political, but economic die-hards living in the past—"You have outstayed your welcome; your ideas are not related to the post-war situation." That brings me to my final point—the question of distribution. What is the purpose of optimum production, the elimination of waste and the best use of everything we are producing—coal, iron and steel and high duty oils—unless it is to provide a high standard of life on the basis of more

  2069
  equitable distribution? What does that imply? It must be said that, in the future, great personal wealth should be regarded as being as much a crime as poverty itself. It ought not to be permitted. Indeed, the only justification for personal wealth on a large scale is if it is ploughed back into our industrial life. I do not object to the man of wealth who constantly throws back into industry what he has gained in profit, and, over and above that, if it is done under State direction, having regard to all the factors concerned. The disparities between rich and poor are going; make no mistake about that. We have to accustom ourselves not to a low standard but to a decent standard of life. That is the object of our reconstruction policy, and if it is not, it is not worth while.
  This is only touching the fringe of the subject. I welcome what was said about the need for a succession of Bills. A general Debate, apart from the discussion of broad principles, is not enough. We are shortly to have certain White Papers on social security matters. That is all very well. I do not object; indeed, I welcome them, but we should have a Debate on how we are going to deal with the coal industry of the country in future. There should be another on iron and steel and related industries, and on high-grade oils, and also on agricultural policy, linked up with general economic policy, and on shipbuilding, too. What about our shipbuilding of the future? Are we going to play into the hands of the United States? Shall we allow our shipbuilders to throw themselves on the tender mercies of the shipbuilders of America? We are eternally grateful to the United States for what they have rendered to us and the world, but we are not going to leave ourselves in their hands when the war is over. That we cannot afford to do, We should have a succession of Debates on these subjects. It would do the Government good, because they would not be conducted in a political spirit. It is not in any sense to criticise the Government that I am trying to put forward these proposals. That is the kind of thing the Government should do, and, if we did that, it would benefit Members and advise the House of Commons, for all of us, without exception, in planning this are determined to build up a reconstruction policy that will profit the people of this country.
  Mr. Spearman: I would like to support what the hon. Member said about having a series of Debates on post-war problems. We are now in the process of passing a Bill which will entail a great expenditure. We hope and believe that the Government are going to produce social reforms which will cost a great deal of money. All of us want these reforms. Most of us are confident that the Government mean to fulfil their promise, but they can only be paid for provided that we can maintain our national income at the highest possible value: the Government cannot expect bricks to appear unless they can provide the straw. Unless we can have the maximum production that is attainable by full employment and by use of the best possible equipment, we cannot expect to have that income which will enable us to fulfil these promises, in which case having made those promises obviously our last state would be much worse than our first.
  The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) in his interesting and stimulating speech, as his speeches always are, has given us a very clear picture of the immense responsibilities and difficulties that Lord Woolton has to face. Lord Woolton has come to his great office with the good will of all of us and with an immense reputation which he has so justly earned but I do not think that that reputation entitles us to relieve ourselves of our responsibilities to see that these immense problems are dealt with. Reconstruction is not just a marvellous opportunity for making all sorts of reforms. We shall not get those reforms, unless we get our industries going.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: There are one or two observations I would like to offer following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). The subject of reconstruction is undoubtedly the most important that faces this country at the present time. The war must come first, but, obviously it is equally true that what we are going to do for those who come back after the war, in the light of the promises that have been made, is nearly as important, if not in some senses more important. Therefore, the Minister appointed as the overlord of the whole plan of reconstruction should be someone in whom all of us have the utmost confidence. Some very kind and well-deserved things have been said about Lord Woolton

  2071
  in his capacity as Minister of Food or as an important captain of industry. We have yet to test him in an office of this kind.
  In some ways, it is rather surprising that Lord Woolton should have been appointed to a post of this sort. As far as I know, he has not in the past shown a very great interest in planning and reconstruction and it is obvious that, in spite of his great abilities, he will be coming new to this particular job. Therefore, it is all the more necessary that he should have around him the kind of staff that can help him, and I was rather pleased with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham that he should have some sort of advisory council. That is essential for two reasons. I have already touched upon one of the reasons, but the other is that Ministers come and go, and it is possible that Lord Woolton may make a mess of the particular post to which he has now been appointed. If he does, it is essential that the man who follows him should have some sort of nucleus to which he can refer, and a staff upon which he can rely. The £18,000, which is the amount put down in this Vote, is not a very great sum and it is obvious that he will not have, at any rate at the present time, the kind of staff that he ought to have to help him.
  I remember the last war and how, when we came back in 1918, we found that the Government were talking of reconstruction. Pamphlets were issued, some of which were either written or inspired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). All that talk and all the planning that then went on went for very little. We had a House of Commons that really was not interested in planning and a Government that apparently did not take the previous promises seriously. That must not happen again. We have to take adequate steps to see that it does not happen again. My generation—the generation of perhaps most hon. Members of this House—was, distinctly and definitely let down at the end of the last war. Promises were not kept to those who came back and to those who served in one capacity or another in that conflict. I do not know whether the temper of this generation is different from that of our generation, but if all that we are told is true, it is dif-
  2072
  ferent, and the younger folk to-day will not stand for a second betrayal. That makes it all the more important that we should have men who really believe in reconstruction and who are in favour of carrying it out.
  I have nothing of a personal kind against Lord Woolton but I have the feeling that he may not necessarily be the man for this particular job, great though his abilities may be in other directions. We are all creatures of the atmosphere in which we have been brought up, and it is obvious that it will be very difficult for a Minister of the Crown, who has spent many years as a captain of industry, to re-orientate his action and his outlook to serve the interests which will have to be served and to refuse to serve the interests which will have to be refused when reconstruction gets into its stride. We ought to realise that no man is absolutely essential and that we must here, in the case of this Ministry, not stop short of building up the nucleus which will serve the Minister whoever he may be in the future. I remember, again going back to the time of the last war, there were two gentlemen who were thought to be absolutely essential to any Government at that time. Their name was Geddes. They became a music-hall jest. I remember on one occasion hearing a song, which had the following refrain:
  "We must have the Geddes,
  Don't forget the Geddes,
  We must have the Geddes too."
  I do not know where these gentlemen are; possibly they have gone to a higher sphere. I remember now that one has been raised to another place, and the other has entered another place. It was then felt that those two gentlemen were absolutely essential to the war effort. There is now a feeling abroad that Lord Woolton, in some peculiar way, is absolutely essential to the war effort. He has done a great job but that does not necessarily mean that he is going to do a great job here. I want to voice the doubt that I feel and to express the hope that the Government should in some way—I know it will be difficult—make this particular Ministry something that is more co-operative than simply the perquisite of one particular man. I would like to see more Labour men with Socialist views associated with that Ministry. It is not right that the two Ministers responsible should be men who have no great political roots—and I refer

  2073
  to Lord Portal as well as to Lord Woolton—and whose upbringing and whole outlook up to the present time has not been the kind of outlook which will help this country to solve the problems that face it. I, therefore, hope that when my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Prime Minister replies, he will be able to give some of us on these benches the re-assurance that this is not going to be left to one man, and only one man, whose political background is what it is and what it has been.
  Commander King-Hall: In the first instance, I want to support not only in general what the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said, but in particular, the approach which he made to this problem. Lord Woolton's appointment was received by the whole country with very high hopes and his appointment is now being watched by a very large number of perhaps not very strong party-minded people of this country as a test case as to whether anything is really going to happen, or whether we are going to fall back into the state of affairs described by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), when various Committees were set up and reports were published some of the most important of which are now even out of print and cannot be obtained. The threads of many thousands of problems are lying before Lord Wool-ton who has to take them up and try to weave them into some sort of pattern.
  It is almost impossible to say where his job and responsibilities end. It certainly covers every aspect of reconstruction in this country and I defy any hon. Member to produce any reconstruction problem in this country which has not got its international link and consequences. It is boundless as far as this is concerned. I agree with the two or three hon. Members who have stressed the need for Lord Woolton to have a small but really adequate advisory staff. That will be extremely difficult for Lord Woolton at this stage of the war. Ali the best people are already in the various Ministries, who will fight most tenaciously not to let them go. The only thing that is certain at the present stage of the war is that the most dangerous person who comes for a job is someone who arrives from a Department with a recommendation. At this stage of the war you have to be suspicious of anyone recommended by any Department. Lord Woolton will have great difficulty
  2074
  in getting the right people, if indeed, he is to have a staff of the character which has been suggested.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that there is no organisation attached to the War Cabinet which can influence civil servants to join one Department or another?
  Commander King-Hall: Not at all. I am suggesting that any Minister or Permanent Secretary who has a first-class person on his staff would put up every obstacle at the moment in order to keep him there. These people are few and far between and would not easily be released. The disadvantage which Lord Woolton has in this matter is that he has not a permanent secretariat to do his fighting for him in that respect.
  The second and final point I want to make is on the question of the nature of this pattern which Lord Woolton has to produce from the threads of all these problems which are floating up towards him. That is where I was particularly interested to hear the approach of the hon. Member for Seaham who, if I understood him aright, clearly said, in effect, that it is ridiculous to approach these different problems from a narrow and prejudiced party point of view. I want Members to start tackling the practical problems in this country which Lord Woolton is co-ordinating—housing, shipping, agriculture. When one remembers that we have to start tackling these problems probably at a time when hostilities with Japan will still be going on, I would suggest to the Committee that one of the most important consequences of Lord Woolton's appointment will be—and Lord Woolton has publicly stated himself that he is not a party man or interested in parties—that if he is to have the slightest chance of making a success of a job which the whole country regards as the key post-war job, it will be absolutely essential for Members of this Committee to do their utmost to keep their party views under pretty strict restraint for at least five years from now.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry to interrupt, but surely it is asking too much of us to keep quiet and let the country go forward in the present haphazard fashion, with no controls at all, when we on this side and hon. Members opposite, led

  2075
  forward by the right group desire the exercise of proper controls. It is asking a lot.
  Commander King-Hall: I quite agree, but we are asking a lot of Lord Woolton too and if, in fact, my hon. Friend is of the view that there is a difference of opinion between important groups in this part of the Committee, how are we to deal with the relations with the Americans on post-war shipping problems or housing, etc.? If my hon. Friend is convinced there is such a sharp division, then the issue will have to be fought out, but the whole tone of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham was that there is a large measure of common agreement in facing up to these practical problems between Members on both sides of the House. There may be differences between Left and Right but I am confident there is a sufficient mass in the middle to see this thing through.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: There was on the staff of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio (Sir W. Jowitt) before Lord Woolton came along, a number of people who had been working with him for several years. Before we conclude this short Debate, could we have some idea of what has happened to them? I have asked before, whether that staff was taken over by Lord Woolton. After all, they had accumulated a great deal of experience in dealing with a wide variety of problems and we would like to know what help Lord Woolton is now having from the staff point of view. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shin-well), with whose speech I am in general agreement, was not in favour of a grandiose Ministry. He came down on the other side and I do too, but we are faced at the moment with a Bill which makes things extremely difficult. Many of us have come to the conclusion that the finance of it will not work—I am speaking of the Education Bill. We are also convinced that the Government's approach to local government on a functional basis bit by bit will not work.
  The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward): I do not think the Debate can be continued on the Education Bill; that is going too far.
  Mr. Lindsay: I will then quote another example for that was merely an illustra-
  2076
  tion. Twenty-five years ago, Lord Haldane issued a report on the Machinery of Government. I believe the Government have reconsidered the basic principles implied in that report. There are two ways of approaching it. You either have a superior Minister like the Prime Minister, with his three Service Departments where he, I gather, gives a final decision on policy, and what I want to ask is: In home affairs does Lord Woolton do the same thing? When we are considering the Vote of a Minister of Reconstruction, we ought to be told a little bit more about his relations to the various sub-Ministries on the home front. That was why I used the illustrations of local government and education. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the definition of 'sub-Ministry'?"] I am sorry, that was a somewhat loose description. I meant the other Ministries below War Cabinet level represented on the home front. I withdraw the adjective, but what is the relation between the Ministries of Education, Health and Agriculture and the Ministry of Reconstruction? Some of us feel very strongly, with the hon. Member for Seaham, that we would like to see the framework of this picture a little more clearly.
  I do not know that we can necessarily put aside the whole party approach. I appreciate that there are honest diferences, but we can approach these questions with frank, intellectual honesty and we shall not go on having these idiotic speeches about control versus de-control but will get down to the actual instrument of control and how it actually affects the man in business. All my friends with whom I have discussed this outside say, "Why does not Parliament get down to the real issue?" I hope the Minister of Reconstruction is going to give us some guidance before long on the general lines of Government policy. If we have that, we shall not have these Debates—the black and the white, control versus decontrol—which very few people in the country think are very helpful. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself does not think these are the real issues. Therefore, I am asking first, for a little more information about the machinery of Lord Woolton's Department, how it affects other Ministries on the home front, whether the old staff belonging to my right hon. Friend is still in existence;

  2077
  and secondly, whether we can get some guidance from the Ministry on a broad line of reconstruction in which many Members in this House and others outside are interested.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): We have had a very interesting discussion. I have been here most of the time but a short absence for a very little refreshment prevented me from hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell). There has been a general welcome to my Noble Friend in his office. I think the hon. Member for Come Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) has not been fully informed. Before the last war, in addition to being a Socialist agitator, I was also a social worker, and one of the people I most frequently met at meetings was the then Mr. Marquis, head of the Liverpool Settlement. As a matter of fact, my Noble Friend has a most unusual background, having been a social worker, and then having dealt with very different matters. I think my hon. Friend forgot that point.
  The next point raised was with regard to staffing. I was very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), indeed all the Committee, realised that we do not want to build up a grandiose Ministry of Planning. In the Minister of Reconstruction we are, as a matter of fact, following out what some of us urged before we were in the Government, and again afterwards, namely, the need for some Ministers without great detailed departmental responsibility, and with comparatively small staffs. My Noble Friend has not got a large staff: it is a carefully selected staff of a few. He may have to add to that. In addition he has a staff which continues a section of the work started by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio. It is not entirely the same staff. Some have gone but some have carried on and are working in the closest co-operation with the Minister of Reconstruction. Then there is the point with regard to economists. For some of these services it is really not well advised to try to set up specialised sections in every Department. It is useful to have a common service. We do that a great deal with regard to scientific and economic advice, although there are economists in the Department as well,
  2078
  but it would be a mistake to try to duplicate all these services.
  A further point was whether there is a continuing body of experience on reconstruction, or whether all will fall, if anything should happen to my Noble Friend. As a matter of tact, this business of planning and reconstruction has been a continuous one since the days of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio has continued the work right through but, essentially, there has not been set up a separate Department of Reconstruction. There, I think, would be a danger, and I am inclined to think that danger happened at the end of the last war when there was a Ministry a little bit outside the general machine of Government dealing with reconstruction problems. The essential thing is, that, while we have Lord Woolton as a Minister of Reconstruction, all Departments have to consider the future as well as the present, and Ministers have to take part in the consideration of post-war problems. It must not be imagined that there is an enormous division between what is going on now and what will go on in the future.
  Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham pointed out that we must have some kind of basis for planning. We have taken a broad basis. In a recent speech the Prime Minister gave it as a kind of immediate task which would face us in the transition period at the end of the war. We shall look ahead as far as we can, and we shall accumulate all the facts that we can, but it is inevitable that all the facts cannot be known to any of us because we do not know when the war will end, we do not know what the conditions will be when the war does end, and our plans, therefore, must be sufficiently flexible to fit varying circumstances. What struck me in the speeches was that they dealt with various matters, to which I have been giving attention during the past week or fortnight. Every one of them recalled to me questions under discussion by the Government. A very important point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh, that in our planning for this country we must consider world planning as well, and the place that we are going to hold in the

  2079
  world in general in the post-war period. That is a matter which, although it does not lend itself necessarily to lengthy treatment at the present moment, is engaging our very close attention. As the hon. Gentleman said very truly we must not allow our internal and external economy to interact adversely.
  The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) and the hon. Member for Seaham stressed the importance of economic planning and economic reconstruction. It does happen that social service plans have been brought before the House first of all and it may be that, in some minds, that has created a feeling that there was neglect of other matters equally important and, indeed, equally vital to social security. That is merely an accident of timing. The hon. Member for Seaham stressed a point that we had to consider the inter-action of these various plans. Social services, in so far as they deal with the better distribution of purchasing power, are vital to any consideration of our internal economy. The point we have to remember is that distribution of purchasing power is vital when you are considering what you are going to produce. These various matters, quite obviously, must be dealt with by one Minister. All Ministers, in a greater or less degree, have to consider problems of reconstruction. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) asked about machinery and referred to "sub-Ministries." I think he had a slight misconception of the way things work.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I withdraw that word.
  Mr. Attlee: It is not a question of under-Ministries or of their being placed under the tutelage of particular Ministers. The tendency nowadays is for groups of functions to be placed under the general supervision of a particular War Cabinet Committee. It is not a matter of giving orders but of bringing people together, of getting the work done in the various Departments and of bringing together those Ministries so that you may get the whole picture. Post-war housing, social services, post-war economics are all, as the hon. Member for Seaham said, closely related. But what you must not do is to destroy the responsibilities of departmental Ministers for their Depart-
  2080
  ments, for which they have to answer in this House. I think the hon. Member for Kilmarnock will realise that it is not a question of putting some Ministers below somebody, since it is equally necessary that broad decisions must, ultimately, be made by the Cabinet.
  The working out of the matter before it comes to the Cabinet for decision will be done by committees of Ministers, and in that work the Minister of Reconstruction has his part to play. In the end the decision must be come to by the War Cabinet. Therefore, there is pertinence in what the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) said. If you are to get anything done by this Government—a Government of all parties—you have to come to agreement, and that means that neither side will get absolutely what they want. What we are faced with in dealing with these matters is the necessity of looking at the actual difficulties of the problems of the post-war world. We must get down to concrete questions, instead of quarrelling about abstractions. When this war ends, there will be need for housing, and it will be necessary to settle practical points about the provision of labour, the acquisition of land and all the rest of it. Those are practical questions which we must face as practical men. The feeding of our people is another practical question and so is the problem of paying our way in the post-war world.
  On those practical questions, I hope we shall get a great measure of agreement, when we come to consider them, and a great measure of agreement when they come before the House. We cannot tell when the war will end, but it is our earnest desire to be ready for the immediate postwar period and also, as far as we can, to lay our plans for an even longer period. I think my Noble Friend Lord Woolton is taking the right line as Minister of Reconstruction in not building up a great new Department but in getting the work done in the existing Departments. It is quite true that you can get a few men of first-class calibre but you cannot get very many and in the middel of war a fierce struggle to get them might cause great damage. On the other hand, you have in the Departments the requisite experience and the requisite ability. The essential thing is to see that that ability is directed to the right ends, that it is brought together and that there is no wasteful dupli-

  2081
  cation or even contest by Departments working separately. I can assure the House that my Noble Friend Lord Woolton is working successfully and harmoniously with his colleagues and I hope that, increasingly, the fruit of his work will be laid before the House of Commons.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has been dealing, himself, within the last week or two, with many things concerning this matter of reconstruction. He has also told us of the difficulties of co-ordinating Departments and of the unwisdom of taking away responsibility from departmental heads. The right hon. Gentleman will not mind me telling him that we have been told these things many times before. But we are now in the fifth year of war, and there is as far as this Committee is concerned, no sign of action on the part of the Government and no sign of planning in this fifth year of war. I can tell my right hon. Friend, as representing the Government, that the country is getting very greatly disturbed about this situation. I, myself, am gravely disturbed, and I know that local authorities in my area and even the great industrialists, are concerned about this matter.
  Everybody agrees that this is a matter of fundamental importance, and everybody agrees that Lord Woolton has done a great service in handling food control in this country. But what we are dealing with now is reconstruction. I do not agree with the appointment of Lord Woolton. I want to see the Minister for Reconstruction in the House of Commons so that we can deal with him from day to day, and week to week. This is a live matter for the country, and I warn hon. Members who have had no experience such as some of us have passed through that we may have when this war is over, as we had after the last war, an industrial revolution. After the last war we were not long in apprehending what was happening. Make no mistake about it. Anybody who knows anything about industry can observe changes taking place now in the world, which may affect great areas of this country, and if we are not careful, we shall have not two or three special areas, but the whole country as a special area.
  The question that is disturbing everybody is not that the Government or their
  2082
  Departments are not doing anything, but that the Government are not taking decisions upon fundamental matters which affect reconstruction. What about the three great Reports on which we are awaiting decisions? Are the Government, because of the interests at stake, afraid to take decisions? Some of us are very much disturbed about this matter and I hope the Government, including the Minister of Reconstruction, will clearly understand that a wastage of men and women is involved in this question.
  Mr. Boothby: I am well aware that my rising at all may cause a certain sense of irritation among some of my hon. Friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—because there is another Debate of great importance to follow. I will only say this in self-defence: that, short of the actual conduct of the war itself, I suppose that the problem of reconstruction is the most important issue before the country to-day. It is even more important than the temporary absence of some 20 Members of this House overseas. I agree that this is not the occasion for a general discussion on economic policy; and I most earnestly hope that we shall have more than one opportunity to debate this subject in the very near future, because Members on both sides have, I think, a good deal to contribute. We have not really discussed these vital matters enough.
  We live in an age of revolutionary economic conceptions, quite apart from party politics. I think it is generally admitted now that wealth does not consist of money, either in terms of gold or paper pounds; it consists of goods, produced by the materials and the man-power that are available in this country. I, for one, rather regretted the implication by Lord Woolton, shortly after his new appointment, that we should be a poor country after this war—a view that was apparently shared by General Smuts. I think it is not only a defeatist view, but an entirely erroneous view; and I was glad to see that, in response to a torrent of criticism from every quarter, Lord Woolton later modified his views on that question. The fact remains that the classical nineteenth century school of economists has been blown sky high by the events of the last ten years. One thing upon which I think there is a consensus of agreement is that employment—which

  2083
  is, after all, the fundamental end of all reconstruction—depends upon total outlay. The price of giving to individuals the right to save is that their savings must be offset by an adequate and, therefore, equivalent capital expenditure. The State must see that that expenditure is effectively undertaken. As several Members on this side have pointed out, this involves direction over a very wide field of Government policy. It involves some direction of investment, the control of credit, the control of imports—on which I shall carry with me members of the Conservative Party—and control of development policy, of which the most important aspect is housing. It also involves trade policy, transport and all the problems arising out of it; and last, but not least, as my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) said, control of the location of industry. All these things are inter-related, inseparately bound up with each other, and most of them have little to do with Socialism, private enterprise or nationalisation.
  Leaving aside for the moment all questions of political "isms," beliefs and credos, what I think some of us are concerned about is the astonishing delay on the part of the Government in arriving at decisions on matters which are not in dispute between the political parties. Take, for example, the question of land. It is well known that speculation in land has been proceeding on a wide scale throughout, the country, not only for months but for years. We have had the Uthwatt and Barlow Reports and a Ministry of Town and Country Planning has been set up. Yet we have not had a single decision of fundamental importance on this, one of the most vital aspects of reconstruction. It is the essential basis of our whole future development. That is what people are getting uneasy about. If my right hon. Friend will not listen to us in the House, he will have to listen sooner or later to the series of thundering articles which are appearing in that important national newspaper, "The Times." Even to-day, or it might have been yesterday, there was another severe complaint in connection with the Brighton by-election. The country is becoming uneasy because decisions are not being reached on matters which have nothing to do with party politics or economic theories one way or
  2084
  the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), in his most interesting and stimulating speech, referred to Germany and said that we ought not to be afraid to examine carefully some of the achievements of Germany in the economic field both during and prior to the war; and, if necessary, to copy them in certain respects. It is true that Germany subordinated economic policy and technique to political ends with startling success. The fact that those ends were vile detracts in no way from the success of the method. What we have to do is to subordinate our economic policy to good political ends instead of to bad; and, of course, the most important political end of all is full employment.
  Commander King-Hall: My hon. Friend will, I hope, agree with me that the ultimate end is the production of wealth. There can be productive and unproductive employment.
  Mr. Boothby: I agree. Before I sit down I would like to say a few words on the subject dealt with by the Deputy Prime Minister, namely, machinery. He referred to the difficulty of collecting a first-rate staff at the present time, and I agree that it is very considerable. We must do the best we can; but in these circumstances I cannot understand the rather churlish attitude of the Government towards Sir William Beveridge's activities in connection with his forthcoming report on unemployment. I would have thought that the Government would have welcomed any responsible private inquiry into such an intricate problem at the present time, instead of practically saying that they would have nothing to do with it. If I were the Government I would welcome any investigation, examination and assistance from any quarter, if I could get it. I would even welcome it from Members of this House. The shortage of staff for a Ministry of Reconstruction seems to me to make it even more necessary that the Government should rely to some extent on outside assistance, beyond the Civil Service, and the Ministerial field. I have always maintained that one day we should have to have a Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, in the Cabinet, with power to co-ordinate policy over the whole field of economics in this country and abroad. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister about the question of the Departmental responsibility of

  2085
  Ministers to this House; but I was sorry he said that Lord Woolton, in his capacity as Minister of Reconstruction, would only take part in the deliberations of various Cabinet committees which had been set up. I would like to see the Minister of Reconstruction—or, as I would prefer to call him, "Secretary of State for Economic Affairs"—as permanent chairman of a committee of Ministers.
  Mr. Attlee: There is a number of different committees and my Noble Friend is Chairman of the Reconstruction Committee.
  Mr. Boothby: Then I may take it that he is permanent chairman of the Committee of Ministers mainly responsible for reconstruction problems, and economic affairs. I am glad to have extracted that, because it is a matter of immense importance. I believe that what we want in this field is something very similar to what we have in the Prime Minister in the field of the conduct of the war. We want a Minister presiding over a Committee of Ministers, as the Prime Minister does in his capacity as Minister of Defence, who will be able to express in the Cabinet the views of all the separate Departments, and who will also have expert advice from something corresponding to the Chiefs of Staff Committee; so that at last we shall get co-ordination and, we may hope, effective action. The Deputy Prime Minister has done much to reassure me by his interjection, for which I am very grateful, and we will hopefully await the results.
  Question put, and agreed to
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,930, be granted to His Majesty, to defray he charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, and the salaries and expenses of certain Ministers appointed for special duties."
  Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFI- CATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th February],"That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[The Attorney-General.]
Question again proposed.
Mr. Bowles: May I in the first place draw attention to the copy of Hansard which I have in my hand? I seem to have lost a "W" out of my name but, in place of it, I have gained a lieutenant-colonelcy.* I hope a correction may be made in a later edition. While listening to the Debate yesterday I noticed that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) said he would have opposed the Bill if he had given notice to the Government of his intention to do so. That seems to me a quite extraordinary attitude to be taken by a person who made the speech which the hon. Member made. He was followed very soon afterwards by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), who said that if there were a Division he, most certainly, would go into the Lobby against the Second Reading. I think this is a most serious matter, and I should like to bring before the House one or two considerations which I think it will be well advised to bear in mind. There are 20 Members of Parliament who are not devoting their time to the House and who have received certificates—one has received two. I estimate that that disfranchises no fewer than between 2,500,000 and 3,000,000 people. The Leader of the House might say that these Members have all, probably, made arrangements for their correspondence to be dealt with by someone else, but any Member of Parliament who is a busy Member, has his time fully occupied in dealing with correspondence from his own constituency alone. Another thing that is possibly influencing the Government in continuing this Act of 1941 cannot really and truly be said to arise, from its actual wording. It says:
"If it is certified by the First Lord of the Treasury that the appointment of any person being a Member of the Commons. House of Parliament to any office or place under the Crown is required in the public interest for purposes connected with the prosecution of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged."
*[The hon. Member was erroneously designated as LIEUT.-COLONEL BOLES (Wells).]
I wonder whether the House really feels that we should not be more vigilant now, than we were in that time of crisis when, after a good deal of discussion and struggle and debate, the Act got through the House. I am not at all disposed to accept the view that the crisis now is such that this Bill should be passed. I wonder, having regard to the fact that 19 out of these 20 Members of Parliament, if the Bill were not passed would be vacating Tory seats, whether there is son fear in the mind of the Government that they would have to fight 19 by-elections, with the very serious results that the Government is experiencing in all the by-elections it is now fighting. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) made a most startling speech. It seems clear that the House was shocked, and it is obvious that it created a furore in the Press, and I feel that we cannot just allow the case to go unanswered.
I am a relatively new Member, and I was particularly shocked that the House had allowed itself to get into the position in which he alleged it was. I do not feel inclined to be put off by high-sounding phrases and words from the right hon. Gentleman. I am wondering how much support I might get from all Members who are jealous of their responsibility and of the dignity and prestige of the House if we asked for an inquiry by a Select Committee into the charges made by my hon. Friend. I hope the Government will agree with that. This is an important constitutional issue. In the old days, the King obtained power by placing men in various offices. I feel frankly and strongly that under this Bill we are fighting to put the right to appoint up to 25 statesmen into the hands of the Prime Minister, and I think the House, apart altogether from party—it must not be a party matter at all—has to look to its laurels in this matter. The Government are entitled to be the Government so long as they command a majority in the House, but they must not get that majority by having a very large number of people in subordinate posts who are, to use my hon. Friend's words, directly or indirectly interested in certain benefits which arise from being attached to the Government.
It is obvious that a certain furore arose over my hon. Friend's suggestion that cer-
2088
tain Parliamentary private secretaries had a particular reason for being in that position. It is well known to hon. Members that Ministers and Under-Secretaries have been responsible for taking their Parliamentary private secretaries out of this country to various places that they visited. As a relatively new Member, I should have thought that the place for a Parliamentary private secretary was here, particularly in the absence of his Minister abroad. I understand, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether it is so, that there are a certain number of Members of the House who can be described as members of the Salvage Committee. Have they received certificates from the Prime Minister, or were they not necessary? In this matter I am in the position of one who does not want to take sides. I do not want to say that the Prime Minister is right or that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is right. I feel, like an ordinary independent Member of the House, that three things should happen. First, we should ask for the regular production by His Majesty's Government of the expenses' accounts of Members of Parliament, including what they get from the British Broadcasting Corporation. Second, the House, having listened to me so patiently, should be persuaded that the Bill should be rejected. Third, we should have an inquiry by a Select Committee. I hope that I shall find other hon. Members supporting the views that I have put forward.
Earl Winterton: I want to stand between the Government and the House only for a few minutes. [Laughter.] My hon Friend has no reason to laugh, although when people say they are going to speak for a few minutes they usually speak for half an hour. I am hopeful, without having any reason to expect it, that the suggestion I have to make will be accepted by the Government. If it is not patronising to do so, I should like to say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) seems to have put most admirably the House of Commons point of view. He is entitled to say what he did. I would also, although I differ line by line from what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said, protest against the idea that we have reached the point when we should be mealy-mouthed

2089
in this House. If a Member, whether my hon. Friend above the Gangway or my hon. Friend behind me, uses language such as at one time we always used in this House, do not let anybody get up and tell him to be what Mr. St. John Ervine called "so refined." From a constitutional point of view, we can look at this matter in two compartments. In the first place, it was always the case in my recollection of the House, and long before I can recollect the House, that certain ex-Ministers, for example, would be asked if they would undertake, on a voluntary basis, certain official duties mainly of an advisory character. The last example of that was Lord Balfour, when he was Mr. Balfour in the 1906 Parliament. He had a great deal to do with the creation of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and he was asked, despite the tremendous feeling between the Liberal and Tory Parties at the time, and although he was Leader of the Opposition, whether he would continue to be a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence. As such he saw all official papers and things of that kind. That is a perfectly proper action for an ex-Minister or any Member of this House to take. Although it may be to some extent beside the case, I represent the Government on an international Committee, and it is legitimate to say that those of us who have been doing that sort of work in the past are entitled to do it in the present.
That is a different thing from what is mainly at issue in this Bill, and I could not put it better than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton put it. The point is really this: is it right from the point of view of the House of Commons, as well as from the point of view of the Government, of the constituency, and of the position and reputation of the Member himself, that any Member of this House, not being a Minister, should spend years overseas representing His Majesty in some important capacity and unable to attend to his work here? That is the issue. As it happens that all those coming within that category are personal friends of mine, and as they are not present in the House, I propose to make no comment upon their absence. It is a matter they must settle for themselves. It is fair to say, however—and none of them can resent it—that the continuance of their position overseas
2090
and, therefore, the continuance of their inability to attend to the ordinary day-to-day work of a Member of this House, must cause criticism among their constituents. All of us, whether we be Tories or Socialists, who are supporters of the Government, would be put in a very awkward position if the electors at an election meeting asked, "Is it the case that there are a number of Members of your House who represent the Government in important capacities abroad and who are not Ministers? Do you think that that is a good thing for the House of Commons?" What would we reply? I know of no reply.
Can anybody say it is a good thing for the House of Commons? One might get out of the question by saying, "These are special cases and special circumstances, and these people have special qualities." I do not want to make any reflection on them, but I frankly question whether they have special qualities. I do not know of any special qualities in one or two cases that entitle them to be where they are, but that is a matter between them and the Prime Minister. I venture to say to my right hon. Friend, once again at the risk of being effusive, that he is very quick to sense the feeling of this House, and, unlike some leaders, he is not content to resist a strong and moral feeling of a non-party character in any direction. I would ask him, therefore, whether he will consider saying that, in view of the obviously genuine feeling that has been expressed in more than one quarter of the House, the Government will give further consideration to this matter—that, even though it may be necessary for the Government to ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading to-day, they will give serious consideration to the question of asking for it another year should the war last as long.
Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I assure the House that I will not detain the right hon. Gentleman for many minutes, but I want to make this contribution not only because I believe this Bill to be bad policy, but because I believe its effect on the constituencies concerned is bad and that they are feeling very strongly about it. I say that for deliberate reasons. I have no particular interest in Rossendale, although I nearly had in the last election. The right hon. Member for Rossendale (Sir R. Cross) has not been available to

2091
his constituents for many years; I believe it is three or four years. I was asked to visit Rossendale last Sunday. I went and heard from friends of mine, Liberals and Conservatives, what they thought about the situation. They feel that they have been cheated by the House of Commons and by this Measure. In fact, one subtle remark made to me by a prominent Liberal was, "We are a sort of Sudeten Lancastrians."
Mr. Sutcliffe: May I say that I have been looking after the Rossendale Division, on behalf of the right hon. Member, since he left this country in June, 1941, which is hardly three or four years ago? I have dealt with all the correspondence, which is considerable, and have gone whenever possible to visit the constituency. The same, I think, applies to the others who are away. Some Member is looking after their constituency in their absence.
Mr. Walkden: I have not the least doubt that the hon. Gentleman has done very well but I am sure he will recognise that he is only a substitute for the Member who was returned in 1935. The feeling in Rossendale is that their Member ought to be here, in the British Parliament, representing them. They feel that somebody else who is not a Member of Parliament could do whatever he is doing in Australia for the Government. It was suggested that he would never be missed in Australia, but I do not say that. I say that his job is here. He was a Minister, and he ought to be fulfilling his Parliamentary functions. That is precisely what is being said by the citizens of Rossendale.
Let me mention one other aspect of the situation. Travelling up this morning by tube I met one or two friends of mine. I suppose they would describe themselves as "something in the City," a term which covers a multitude of trades and professions. I heard them passing remarks about the reports of the Debate which took place on this Bill yesterday, and one or two of them seemed to have information, of which I was not fully informed, that there are two or three Parliamentary private secretaries who, if they are not already away, will be sent from this country, for Heaven knows what reason, along with the Parliamentary Secretaries or Ministers with whom they are associated.
2092
When they asked me why it was necessary for those P.P.S.'s to go, I could find no explanation or answer, and I felt it was a question of: "Was their journey really necessary?" They had a right as citizens to ask where those representatives of the British people—
Colonel Arthur Evans: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? He is making suggestions to the House of which I think the majority of us have not the slightest knowledge. He should specify the cases which he has in mind so that the House will be in possession of the facts.
Mr. Walkden: I do not know the particular constituencies. I know that two or three people have recently disappeared for different reasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?" and "Name."] They have been P.P.S.'s. Their names I know, but it is difficult to associate them with their particular constituencies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name the Ministers."] There are Ministers, but I am referring to the P.P.S.'s. [HON. MEMBERS: "To which Ministers?"] Might I ask where the P.P.S. to the Minister of Supply is at this moment, the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. Leonard)? I believe that is one example. Is he not away in America? [Interruption. There is a self-confessed Member here who has been out of the country. I do not know who authorised him to go, but he went with a Minister. I believe a P.P.S. is usually an active person, a sort of liaison officer between Members of this House and a Minister, and his job is here in the House of Commons, not serving abroad.
Mr. Arthur Jenkins: To the best of my recollection the House was not sitting while I was out of the country with the Deputy-Prime Minister.
Mr. Walkden: For example, I would not blame the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Brigadier Harvie Watt), who is P.P.S. to the Prime Minister, for joining in the various visits that the Prime Minister has to make abroad, but the Prime Minister never takes the hon. and gallant Member with him. The hon. and gallant Member remains here and sees to it that hon. Members are kept fully informed from day to day. What is more, he is more genial, kindly and industrious in all the duties he performs. I have referred to the right

2093
hon. Member for Rossendale. I have tried to cover two or three people whose names come to me, but there are others who could be added to the list. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that this is not a party issue at all. We are not challenging this as members of a particular party, or perhaps because the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) made such a challenging speech yesterday. We feel that it is thoroughly bad policy and that it has a bad effect on the electorate; and it is, we say, unfortunate, as certain constituencies to which I have referred are feeling very strongly about it.
Major Petherick: I think that the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) was a little off the point when he was discussing the matter of Parliamentary private secretaries. I sometimes think, as one who does not belong to those august circles, that there ought to be some society for the protection of them, some dumb friends' league. Really, we are not discussing the question of Ministers who go abroad for a few weeks upon a matter of important business and who are so wise or so imprudent—depending on the person—as to take their Parliamentary private secretaries: We are discussing Ministers who are appointed to places of profit under the Crown and who are sent abroad for periods of years when they still remain. Members of this House.
Earl Winterton: May I correct my hon. and gallant Friend on a point of nomenclature? They are not Ministers. That is exactly what they are not. They are Private Members and they have not Ministerial rank in this House.
Major Petherick: I am glad of the Noble Lord's interruption. There are Ministers of State who have peculiar positions, something between a civil servant, a Colonial Governor and a Cabinet Minister, and, of course, there are others. It is very encouraging to notice in the course of the Debate that all parties in the House, with the exception, perhaps, of those who are in the Government, join together in asserting what is, in fact, a most important constitutional safeguard. I think on every possible occasion when such a matter as this comes up, it is right and proper that the House of Commons should take vigilant action.
2094
May I for a moment try to answer one main defence of the Bill, which is that it is just as proper that a man should serve his country abroad, if he is a Member of Parliament, in some important position, as that he should serve it in the Fighting Forces? It seems to me that there is some essential difference which we should endeavour to bring out. At the beginning of the war many hon. Members felt that we had to give the Executive very much greater powers in the earlier stages of the war, and that as the country was very short of officers it was right, on balance, and a narrow balance at that, perhaps, to go back to the Army or the Navy or the Air Force, if we had been members of the Forces before or to join the Forces if we had not. Every hon. Member must make his own decision in such matters and we cannot lay down any general rule; but we have reached a rather different stage of the war now. It seems more and more that the duty of a Member of Parliament is here in this House of Commons.
There are other factors. If he is a young Member, fit and strong enough to be a fighter in the front line, that is a motive which would justify him in staying in the Army. If he can manage to combine a Staff job, or even a job in a unit, with his duties as Member of Parliament, that is another matter. If he is unable to be in the front line or to combine those jobs, and can only do the Staff job, and that Staff job happens to be abroad, can we not look upon the House of Commons as a Staff job in itself? Anybody within reason who is efficient can do a Staff job, but only 615 persons can be Members of Parliament. That seems to be some sort of answer to that general thesis which has been put up on behalf of the Government in favour of the Bill.
The Bill mainly covers those Members, or at least we are discussing those Members, who have gone to positions abroad. I think that cases such as that of the Junior Member for Cambridge University (Professor A. V. Hill), who is on some sort of Government advisory board, could be dealt with in quite another way. It is nearly always wrong to frame legislation to fit persons and not situations which are concerned with matters of great collective importance. We always get into trouble if we allow anything of that nature. I come to two main points. Firstly, is it desirable that these Members should go abroad? The answer is that

2095
it may or may not be, depending on the person and depending on the national interest. The second point is, are these distinguished Members of ours the only persons available for those jobs? I very much doubt if that is the case. We have another place which provides at any moment a wealth of talent which is hardly drawn upon in normal times or even in war-time, and there are many outside either House. But what I am coming to is this: Is it right that a Member of Parliament, whose duty is in the Commons House of Parliament, should be away for years together? I may be allowed to protest against this system of perambulating pro-consuls. I think it is constitutionally undesirable, but that is by the way.
Is it desirable in principle that for a period of several years together Members of the House of Commons should be away from their own functions? They had a great deal of trouble in France before the war arising from the very fact that Members of the Chamber or the Senate would sometimes be sent abroad as Colonial Governors and they were then still playing politics. I am not for a moment suggesting that any of our Members abroad are doing that. The danger is that they might. They have a foot in politics and a foot in administration, and that involves a great constitutional principle which we should maintain most carefully. Supposing it is desirable on principle to send these Members abroad and we say that we must have Mr. So-and-so, who is a Member of the House of Commons. If we take that view I think we must consider it a step further. There are three main aspects of this situation. The first is that the Member of Parliament concerned, as the Noble Lord quite rightly said, must make up his own mind. I cannot conceive that I should be happy in going abroad for so long and neglecting my constituents, wondering how they were getting on and feeling that I had completely lost touch with them while nominally remaining a Member of this House. The second point is that the work of Parliament must inevitably suffer if we are to take 20 persons of distinction—Privy Councillors, ex-Cabinet Ministers in many cases—from Parliament at a very vital period. It seems absolutely certain that the general work of the House must be to same extent less forcefully
2096
carried on and carried on with less experienced people.
Finally, I come to the position of the constituency, which has been mentioned by many Members in the course of this Debate. The constituency is completely disfranchised. There is nobody who can speak for the hon. Member who is absent from Parliament. Another Member, up to his eyes with his own work, may be good enough to take over the absent Member's correspondence, but that is not the same thing. Furthermore, he may have an admirable wife—some Members have—and a very good agent, but once again that is not the same, because the personal touch is not there. There is the difficulty of borderline cases, of which we are all aware, when one needs to go to the Minister personally to get satisfaction. The result is that these cases will clearly go by default. In conclusion, I may say that this Bill is constitutionally undesirable. It was framed to meet a special situation. I do not say that the situation has now ceased, but none the less I believe that the Government, if I may respectfully suggest it, should between now and the Committee stage seriously consider whether they cannot limit the period of exemption for which these certificates are granted. I urge them very strongly to do that, particularly in view of the strong feeling on constitutional grounds which has been expressed from all sides of the House.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Following what the hon. and gallant Member has just said I would like to put one or two questions to the Leader of the House, who is about to reply. Firstly, if this Bill is passed now it will undoubtedly run for a year. In view of the feeling of the House, the undoubtedly strong feeling that has been expressed from all sides, could we get an assurance from the Government that although the Bill when it becomes an Act will allow this matter to run for a full year, the Government will take steps to try to end this situation at a much earlier date? I realise that it would be grossly unfair if the system were cut off suddenly now. These Members have gone abroad with the Prime Minister's certificate, with, as they think, the approval of the House, and it will take some time to reduce the situation so that such a large number are not spread all over the

2097
world. I think a year is too long. It would, I think, meet the feeling of the House if the Leader of the House could give us some assurance that the Government will not sit back and say, "We have another year" and put the matter aside until then.
The other observation I have to make is this: A good deal of feeling has been aroused, as the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) said, by the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) yesterday. Half of his speech was a passionate defence of democracy and the other half, in my view, was a very grave disservice to the same cause, and I feel it only right that that view should be voiced before this Debate ends. I think on reflection the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who has great oratorical gifts, would be willing to admit that he was perhaps carried away by the exuberance of the occasion.
Mr. A. Bevan: No such thing. Had I not used strong language yesterday the House would not have been sufficiently seized of the gravity of this matter to-day.
Mr. Hall: In the minds of some there is a feeling that we have as a House something to hide, that Members have been receiving money for services or benefits of one kind or another to which they are not entitled, and Parliamentary private secretaries—I am not one myself—have been dragged into this in a rather peculiar way. We have, or so it seems to me, rather done a disservice to the issue, which, after all, is what matters, whether a constituency should be disfranchised for an unknown period because the Member has been sent abroad at the behest of the Prime Minister. Although I personally do not think it is essential that we should have a Select Committee of inquiry, something should be done, if possible, to allay public misgiving, because some people, at any rate, imagine that half of us are lining our pockets with Government money. That may be going on: all I can say is that none of it comes my way or, so far as I know, the way of anybody whom I talk to in this House. I come back to the one serious point, the kernel and core of this discussion, and ask the Leader of the House for an assurance that this matter will not be allowed to drag on for another year.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I do not think anyone would complain—certainly I would not—that the House has desired to have, and has had, a full discussion and examination of this question. I never concealed my view that this particular Measure was a Measure for exceptional times, and it seems to me absolutely right—in fact, I think the House would be lacking in its duty otherwise—that Members should be vigilant in the matter; and should express their criticisms if they desire to do so. At the same time, the House was a little hard on my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in accusing him of incivility; I know of no more civil colleague of mine. No doubt he was misled by the precedents of previous years, when his short speech was followed by only one which was shorter, but perhaps he did not realise that the feeling on this matter had changed since last year. I will answer a point made by one hon. Member, which I do not think really comes within the scope of the Bill, but which seems to be harassing him since his railway carriage conversation yesterday. So far as I know, no Parliamentary private secretary has really gone abroad with his Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I only know that in my particular case I have never taken a Parliamentary private secretary, and I cannot discover a case. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is one on this Bench now."] There may be, but I do not think that is a terrible crime. I do not see in the least how it can be described as a case of corruption. Quite frankly, the only reason why I did not take mine was that there was no room in the aeroplane. For a Minister going abroad on an important mission it is a great help to be able to talk over matters with a Parliamentary colleague.
Earl Winterton: I am sorry to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but surely the point made in the Debate is one which should be irrefragable. It is that the Parliamentary private secretary is not, like an official secretary, appointed to help the Minister in his Department: his duty is in this House, to help the Minister here. I hope that Ministers will not get into the habit of taking their Parliamentary private secretaries all over the place.
Mr. Eden: At any rate, I have not trespassed. I have myself, when abroad on occasions, wished very much that I had

2099
someone from this House to whom I could put points.
Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a distinct economy to take a Parliamentary private secretary rather than a civil servant with him when he is abroad?
Mr. Eden: I do not know; perhaps I will practise economy one day, and find out. I will go on with the point of the Debate. I find, rather to my surprise, that this list of Members of this House who are affected has not for some time been circulated. I suggest that if an hon. Member would be good enough to put a Question down, the list might well be circulated in Hansard. If that happened, we should allay quite a considerable amount of anxiety which exists in this House. Hon. Members talked about 20 Members being overseas—and these Members were at the same time described as placemen of the Government, which is a rather difficult geographical combination. Hon. Members seem to think it is a terrible thing that there should be these 20 overseas. There are not anything like 20 overseas. This list contains 20 in all, of whom 13 are available in this House and do their work as Members, like any of us. I was asked just now whether the Waste Food Board appointments came on this list. In fact, they both do: the two Members concerned, the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) and the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), are both included in the 20. The House must not think that all these 20 persons are in receipt of public money. It is said that they are paid by the Government, but a great many are in receipt of nothing at all. I have had a telegram to-day from my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Hewlett), who is also one of the 20. I think I might read the telegram:
"I was appointed Controller of Dyestuffs on 12th November, 1941, I am in receipt of neither remuneration nor expenses. I will be grateful if you would mention this in Debate."
I know there are several others exactly similarly placed. This list of 20, which was so horrifying, shrinks into smaller proportions when so analysed. Perhaps I could say this at the outset, in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I agree that
2100
this was done for exceptional times and that we ought to be very watchful about it, and I am prepared to say "Yes" to the question which the Noble Lord put to me just now. The question was, whether the Cabinet would take into consideration the observations made in various speeches in this Debate and the very obvious feeling that this particular Measure, granted in an emergency, ought not to be continued indefinitely. I undertake that between now and the next occasion we will consider all that has been said in the Debate, and the Cabinet will go into the whole question. I cannot say what will be the position a year from now. The Government may or may not need these Members, but if we do decide that we need this Measure again we shall come and state our case to the House. I cannot say whether we shall need it or not: that depends upon the course of events in the next 12 months.
Sir Herbert Williams: Would my right hon. Friend consider amending this present Bill, so that it runs for only six months?
Mr. Eden: I really cannot do that at this stage. I must ask the House to let us have this Bill. I think that is reasonable. When this Measure has been approved by the House I am prepared to say that between now and when we come to the House again for a similar Measure, the whole matter will be considered by the Government. If we do come and ask for it again, we will state our case, and the House can take its decision. May I say this to the House? I would be sorry if hon. Members were to take the view that in no circumstances were Members of this House to combine their duties here with various forms of national service in wartime. I think that would be a great mistake. We have taken, broadly, the view that, as long as there is no opposition, an hon. Member should have a certain kind of opportunity for doing that, and I should be sorry if we changed that, because there have been some very remarkable successes as a result. The constituency argument is a very formidable one, and, if the absence goes on too long, it may become completely overwhelming. That is possible, but, even so, I would say to hon. Members that in many cases hon. Members are best left to deal with each other. It has often been my experience.

2101
If you think you know more about an hon. Member's relationship with his constituency than the hon. Member himself, you may find that you are wrong. This Bill does not say that those who take these offices must remain Members of Parliament. It gives them power, if they so decide, to do that, and it is an opportunity which they would not otherwise have. It would be wrong in my judgment—
Mr. Maxton: But supposing the constituency does not take the same view?
Mr. Eden: Well, what recourse does a constituency have in peace-time if the hon. Member does not attend to his duties but goes away?
Mr. Bellenger Mr. Bellenger (Bassetlaw) rose—
Mr. Eden: I have an argument to develop and hon. Members can put questions if they like later. It would be wrong, I think, if it were possible for this practice to be widely extended. I think that would be a really dangerous situation, because you may reach the point where the Government, by creating a number of offices, supposing they were not abroad but here, would have a larger numerical hold on the House than it was entitled to have, and that is why the Select Committee, I think quite rightly, advised that the number should be limited. It was in pursuance of this recommendation that the Government fixed a limit of 25, which is still in force. There are now 20, and I can give the House the assurance that we have no intention of trying to increase that number or anything of the kind. On the contrary, if there is a tendency, it is much more likely to be the other way.
I think I must, as Leader of the House, say a word on behalf of those who were attacked yesterday, and in particular the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. M. MacDonald). I should have thought that this was just an example—and I say this because I have been in Canada fairly recently—of a case where an hon. Member of this House has been of quite invaluable service. In fact, I was told so in Canada and in the United States, and I cannot see why, when the right hon. Gentleman comes back to the House, he will be any less important a Member for the experience which he has gained there. I think I can say the same thing about the right hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Ben
2102
Smith) who has just begun his work in Washington. I have had exactly similar reports from Americans who have come here in the last few weeks—that his appointment has been absolutely justified. There is one right hon. Member who does not come under the Bill but who was attacked yesterday, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Samuel Hoare). If the House will cast its mind back to the time he went there as Ambassador, I wonder how long hon. Members thought he would be our Ambassador in a neutral capital? I had the greatest doubts, and I would not myself have wagered very much on six months. Well, he is still there, and he is entitled, I think, to a share of the credit, and a great share.
Mr. Bowles: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is keeping to the point. We are not saying that these hon. Members are not doing a very good job.
Hon. Members: It was said.
Mr. Eden: The charge was made. The right hon. Gentleman was attacked and I propose to reply. So far as the policy pursued in Spain is concerned, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government. It is not the Ambassaodr's policy. If hon. Members wish to make any attack, let them attack me, not an Ambassador who is not here to defend himself.
Mr. A. Bevan: He could come back and answer me.
Mr. Eden: One other reference I must make. My right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's (Mr. Duff Cooper) was also attacked. I think the hon. Gentleman was more than unjust to him. I am not going over the past, but I remember an afternoon in this House when, whatever our views at the particular time, a decision was taken by the right hon. Gentleman which was an extremely courageous decision, and I think all of us felt a sense of admiration for it, whether we agreed or did not agree. It was a very unpopular thing to do. I also recall the fact that he gained the D.S.O. as a junior officer in the Brigade of Guards. It was a remarkable achievement.
Mr. Bevan: I made no reference whatever yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman's courage or gallantry. I referred only—as I am entitled to do—to his record as a Minister, and this is special pleading of the worst kind.
Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman seemed to me to treat my right hon. Friend as a person of no account [Interruption.] That is my impression, but I do not propose to pursue the point further, and I would not have said what I have said except that I feel that when people are not here there is an obligation on those who are here to be fair to them. There is one other matter which was more serious about which I must speak. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made one statement yesterday to which I must refer. He said this:
"Before the Government begin, it can reckon upon 200 Members supporting it in the Lobby, because of the financial interest or the expectation of financial interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1944; col. 1997, Vol. 396.]
I must say, as Leader of the House, that I believe that statement to be absolutely and entirely without foundation. I think it should go out from the House that that is the feeling of this House.
Mr. Bevan: Let us have a Select Committee.
Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman has brought no evidence. He comes down and makes a charge, a most serious charge, without a shred of evidence, and then says, "Let us have a Select Committee." Let us have some evidence. Of course, the Government would examine the evidence and decide what to do about it. We ought to be very careful not to make general charges of this very wide character in this way; that can only do us harm. I rest quite content with what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said yesterday, that in his experience, and it is mine, the House is a pretty clean place. I say no more than that. All the Ministers and others were linked into this large number. I do not think people outside understand how very little difference there is, if any, between the financial position of an Under-Secretary and that of a back bench Member.
Hon. Members: They are worse off.
Mr. Eden: I was going to analyse them, briefly, for the benefit of those who do not know. A junior Minister gets £750 a year. Many Members of the public think he still draws his Member of Parliament salary. He does not, nor is he allowed to charge anything against
2104
expenses. He is probably a poorer man than a private Member of the House. I believe it to be generally true that most people who have held office in this country were not richer men as a result of it. I feel that that is something of which we ought to be proud. I could think of many distinguished statesmen who were in this House not so long ago who died poor men after a whole life of service to their country. That is one of the most cherished of our traditions, and we must guard it, and charges ought not to be made unless evidence is brought at once to substantiate them.
I do not understand where the P.P.S. comes into all this. I was once for a short time a P.P.S., and the only privilege I recall was that of writing a letter on Foreign Office notepaper instead of House of Commons notepaper. If there were any privileges I failed to take them.
Mr. Shinwell: What about the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter)?
Mr. Eden: I looked at it again. It is correct. My right hon. Friend does not come under the Bill because he is serving an international authority. If that was to be a wide or lasting or general practice, I agree the matter would have to be closely looked into. My right hon. and learned Friend gave the right answer in regard to the provisions of the Bill. Let me sum up the position as I see it. It is a matter for watchfulness, but I do not think it is a matter for exaggeration, and I feel, in running through some of the speeches, that there is a strain of exaggeration. I have noticed the speeches and the tone of them to-day. I ask hon. Members to let us have this Bill. I repeat my undertaking that, if they will, before we come to the House again—this is exactly why we are doing it in this way instead of having special arrangements made—we will examine the situation bearing in mind the sentiments of the House. I cannot pledge what the decision will be, but I pledge myself that if we decide to go ahead I will come and make a full case to the House. I hope that in these circumstances the House will let us have the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I can only speak again with the permission of the House,

2105
because I have exhausted my rights. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, that he desires to meet the wishes of the House, but I would ask him to realise that he has not really gone very far. All he has said is that the Government will give consideration to this matter between now and this time next year, and that if they are in precisely the same position next year as they are now they will put the matter very fully before us. That is not going very far. If the right hon. Gentleman wants us to-day to be unanimous in this vote I suggest that he might go a little further than that. The House is not parting with the Bill. If it gives it a Second Reading to-day we shall have a Committee stage and the Third Reading. Could he not undertake that at any rate before the Third Reading of the Bill, he will give consideration to this matter, so that he might be able to tell us how long the Government really want this situation to continue? It may be, for instance, that before the Third Reading he could say, "We cannot bring these men home. We cannot at once stop all these people who are working for the country, but the situation may be different in six months' time." Therefore, instead of letting the Bill run for a year now, we could make it run for six months with a view to reconsidering it. If the right hon. Gentleman, without pledging himself now, were to say that before the Bill reached the Committee stage or the Third Reading he would be in a position to consider the matter and to give some sort of indication, very likely my hon. Friends might, in these circumstances, not wish to divide against the Bill.
Mr. Eden: I really cannot do that. I have to consider the position of Members who are under this Bill and who are, in perfectly good faith, abroad doing service. I think that the undertaking I gave is as much as can reasonably be asked of the Government. All that I ask is that we should be allowed to have the Bill. Nobody denies the emergency. This is almost the only thing with which I disagreed with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) yesterday. The war emergency is as great as it was last year, and in some respects it is greater. For instance, I would not change the position of Ambassador at Madrid at the moment. I would regard it as a very unfortunate disservice. I ask to have this Bill for
2106
another year and again I undertake that everything will be considered, and if we come to the House—I cannot say that we shall—then a full explanation will be given.
Mr. Maxton: I did not attempt to suggest that the emergency was less but that the problems here were now becoming more important than problems abroad. Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider this, because it is primarily a House of Commons matter, and it is with the welfare of the House that I am concerned? Would he consider some Amendment on the Committee stage to place it within the power of the House to decide, inside the 12 months if necessary, when this process should be terminated? Some such words as "or on such date as shall be determined by Resolution of the House of Commons" or something of that description would meet the case.
Mr. Eden: I will consider what the hon. Member has said, but I really do not think that that is practicable. The period is not a long one. We shall have to reexamine the situation before we come back to the House, and the period will not be long, anyhow. If in the interval the emergency is at an end, another situation will arise. I do not think it unreasonable, in view of the opinion of the House on this matter, to let us have the Bill under the conditions I have suggested.
Major Mills: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Are all hon. Members who have spoken to be allowed to make a second speech? Having fired their right barrel, are they to be allowed to fire their left barrel also?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was only asking a question, and I was going to stop him if he had gone on longer.
Mr. Pritt: It is said that these men are abroad doing very useful work. They have gone out in reliance upon the good faith of the Government in asking them to go on these services. If they have gone out on a certificate given by the Government under a Statute which is now running out they must have gone out knowing that that is all the certificate that they have got. The Government now have three or six

2107
months in the course of which they can say to some of these gentlemen, "If you are going to stay on any longer in the service you will have to serve the country a little more by giving up membership of this House." I do not think we are asking the right hon. Gentleman for very much.
Mr. Stokes: While I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has promised to look into this matter fully before he brings it to the House again, I do not think that he dealt with the situation at all satisfactorily. I particularly want to refer to one or two points of the attack on the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). In my opinion, and in the opinion of a great number of people in this country and in this House, he served a useful purpose in making the speech he did yesterday. I cannot understand the Leader of the House accusing my hon. Friend of wrong imputations against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Duff Cooper). I have taken the trouble to look up what my hon. Friend said:
"Take, for example, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Duff Cooper). He is always in office. Nobody knows why. He gets one office after another. He leaves them all with a worse reputation than when he entered them. He went out to the East and came back and made a report. Why is he kept in the Government—because he made a report on Singapore which they did not want to hear?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1944, col. 1995, Vol. 396.]
Nothing that the hon. Member said was derogatory to the right hon. Gentleman except that in his opinion—[Laughter]. Why do hon. Members opposite always laugh before I finish a sentence? The point I want to make is that the only good thing the right hon. Member has done, the report on Singapore, the Government have suppressed. Naturally, the suspicion is widely abroad that the reason why he is kept in office is because it would be so thoroughly inconvenient to have him in opposition. That is the argument on this side of the House about these appointments which were described as the Prime Minister's Gestapo. The Prime Minister gets rid of a Minister and rather than have him come and do a useful job in office in helping to make the House of Commons a constructive and critical body, he is banished to the far ends of the earth at a salary of £5,000 a year or so. The
2108
second point which the Leader of the House made was about the Parliamentary private secretaries. I think it is quite wrong to say my hon. Friend accused them of what is tantamount to financial graft and I draw the attention of the House to what he did say as reported in Hansard:
"Before the Government begins, it can reckon upon 200 Members supporting it in the Lobby because of financial interest or the expectation of financial interest."
That seems to me to be a perfectly fair observation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly it is fair. Why does a man become a Parliamentary private secretary? The answer is that he expects one day to be a Minister. That is one of the reasons why I do not become one. He does not do it for any other reason. That is an expectation of financial benefit. My hon. Friend went on to say that they expect benefits. Of course they expect benefits, and the main complaint we have is that practically speaking 200 people are only here in support of the Government and will only speak in support of the Government. I know there is a bit of dodging about at Question time when a Parliamentary private secretary comes over here and appears to be in opposition and then goes back, but when there is dirty business afoot—and I know this because I have had some jobs to do in the House—[Laughter.] I did not mean it that way—can you get a Parliamentary private secretary to join in an attack on the Government, although he knows it is perfectly fair? He says, "Oh, no, I cannot do that, because I am a Parliamentary private secretary." They all say it quite frankly. Everyone knows that the moment a Member becomes a Parliamentary private secretary he will only address the House for a moment in order to get into the local Press. That is, roughly speaking, all he does.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of Order. Is it in Order to suggest that the reason why hon. Members of this House support the Government is the expectation of financial interest and not their desire to serve their country?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that was said. The position of Parliamentary private secretaries is getting a little far from the Debate.
Mr. Stokes: The point I want to get on to is this question of expense. I have always understood that the House of

2109
Commons was supposed to be the watchdog of the country's purse and to see to it that money was not squandered. I ask the Leader of the House why it is considered to be an advantage to have these plenipotentiaries who go abroad? I cannot believe, that, however good they are, they are better than the trained Ambassadors. I examined the salary position with regard to the right hon. Member for Madrid—as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) described him yesterday. The ordinary Ambassador's salary in Madrid is £2,500, subject to tax, plus £4,100 expenses. If you add those two together it means, in effect that the ordinary Ambassador, the predecessor of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) was receiving about £5,000 a year. The right hon. Member for Chelsea, by his elevation to Madrid, is really the richest man in England, although he lives in Madrid. He has no salary because, having got round the difficulty by paying him £8,100 in expenses, it is free of tax. If you gross that up it is in the order of £160,000 gross. [HON. MEMBERS: "More than that."] Well, it is really £260,000, but it does not matter. The thing is perfectly extravagant and I do not see how you can justify getting rid of somebody you do not want by sending him away to a foreign country with any mandate you like, simply on the Prime Minister's certificate.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: What matters is the items on which he has to spend the money.
Mr. Stokes: I cannot answer that point; I am comparing what he gets with what an ordinary Ambassador would get under the same conditions and I have never had a satisfactory answer, but that is not unusual. I do not want to detain the House very much more but I do feel—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is carrying on a conversation with other Members; will he please continue his speech?
Mr. Stokes: That has put me off even more. I say this in all seriousness and I have stayed at great inconvenience to join in this Debate. I want to say, with great respect to the Leader of the House, that the sense of the House, quite obviously, is against this Bill. It may have been necessary at certain times but it is doubtful if it is necessary now. It leads
2110
to all sorts of possibilities and irregularities of the kind we do not like, and reminds me of an old Chinese proverb,
"A fish starts rotting at its head."
I am glad to say that this House is so much on its toes at present as to insist that this House shall not start rotting at its head.
Mr. W. J. Brown: The point I want to put is one of substance. This is not the first Debate which the House of Commons has had on this subject of the growth in the number of place men. There was a Debate in the middle of the last century when Mr. Dunning put forward a Motion that the Members of the House of Commons, occupying offices of profit, should never at any time exceed four. The House did not accept that. To-day, the number of Ministerial posts is somewhere about 90 and there are many other posts of one sort or another, bearing financial benefits, which are within the gift of the Crown.
Let me say at once, that I do not want to make any suggestion of corruption or bribery. It is not necessary to establish bribery or corruption to demonstrate that it is undesirable in principle that more than a limited number of Members of Parliament should occupy offices of profit. I do not suggest for a moment that a man is bribed by office, or bribed by the promise of profit to go into the Government Lobby. But it lies in the nature of things that a man who receives benefit from others is grateful for them. It is recognised that it is desirable to restrict offices of profit under the Crown, and in time of peace there is always a party on one side of the House trying to correct any errors or wrongdoings on the other side. There is a check upon the extent to which this thing might go. I think we are entitled, when we have a Coalition Government in office and when the natural check which operates in time of peace does not operate in time of war, to say that that makes it more necessary, not less necessary, that the Government itself should be vigilant and keen to reduce the number of place men occupying offices of profit. I feel in view of what the Leader of the House has said that we cannot do other than give this Bill a Second Reading, but I hope that between now and next year consideration will be given to the point that a thing which is generally undesirable in peace time is doubly undesirable

2111
in time of war because of the absence of ordinary checks.
Mr. A. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to make no advance whatsoever—to use the auctioneer's phrase—on the statement made by him, and is all he promises that between now and a year ahead the Government will do what they ought to have done before, examine the position? That is all the right hon. man said, as I understood him. He has given no assurance. May I suggest that some hon. Members will then have been

Division No. 4.

AYES.

Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)

Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Albery, Sir Irving

Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Hicks, E. G.

Procter, Major H. A.

Baxter, A. Beverley

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Pym, L. R.

Beattie, F. (Cathcart)

Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Berry, Hon G. L. (Buckingham)

Hughes, R. Moelwyn

Ritson, J.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)

Robertson, D. (Streatham)

Bower, Norman (Harrow)

James, Admiral Sir W. (Ports'th, N.)

Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Savory, Professor D. L.

Burden, T. W.

Keeling, E. H.

Shakespeare, Sir G. H.

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.

Cary, R. A.

Kirby, B. V.

Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street)

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Colman, N. C. D.

Linstead, H. N.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Conant, Major R. J. E.

Locker-Lampson, Commander O. S.

Sutcliffe, H.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Longhurst, Captain H. C.

Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.

Critchley, A.

McCorquodale, Malcolm S.

Thomas, I. (Keighley)

Crookshank Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Douglas, F. C. R.

McEntee, V. la T.

Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)

Drewe, C.

Manningham-Buller, Major R. E.

Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.

Touche, G. C.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Mathers, G.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Elliston, Captain Sir G. S.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.

Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)

Messer, F.

Webbe, Sir W. Harold

Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.

Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)

Gower, Sir R. V.

Molson, A. H. E.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Grant-Ferris, Wing-Commander R.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Guy, W. H.

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

Mr. Boulton and Mr. A. Young.

NOES.

Bellenger, F. J.

Granville, E. L.

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)

Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)

Horabin, T. L.

Walkden, E. (Doncaster)

Buchanan, G.

Maxton, J.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Pritt, D. N.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—

Mr. Stokes and Mr. Bowles.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
Committee upon the next Sitting Day.

PRIZE SALVAGE BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
out of the country longer than the normal life of Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be making another speech.
Mr. Eden: I can only speak again by leave of the House. I have made the decision of the Government plain, not once but three times. I have made the matter quite clear, I think.
Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 10.
This Bill, which is a matter of some urgency, deals with prize salvage, which originated in the old days when a man-of-war, a ship of His Majesty's Navy, having recaptured a vessel taken as a prize by the enemy, was entitled to claim against the vessel. The law arose in the old days when a French privateer captured a merchant vessel and one of His Majesty's vessels saw what happened, pursued the privateer, rescued the ship and brought it home to claim against the owners. We are all confident that in the future, as the

2113
result of our combined operations, in which the Navy, Army and Air Force will take part, ports at present in the occupation of the enemy will come into our hands. In those ports there will be a number of British and Allied vessels, most of which will have been there either since the outbreak of war or since the occupation of Allied territories. The House will see how different a recapture of that kind is from individual action on the high seas, out of which this law of prize salvage originated. It is desired that when these ships come back into our hands they should be distributed to their different Governments, or owners, to take their part in the war. To make that subject to claims by members of one or other of the Forces which have taken part in the operation would be repugnant to the general principle on which we, as Allies, are conducting the war and it is, therefore, desired to enter into mutual arrangements under which, in effect, the various Governments concerned will say that prize salvage does not, in general, apply to these combined operations.
The Bill takes the form of giving the Admiralty or a Secretary of State control of these proceedings. We do not abolish the right of prize salvage in this class of combined operations and we do not anticipate anybody not joining in, but if one country was inclined to say, "We think we ought to make a claim," then we have power to say, "We think the same." The form we take gives the Admiralty or a Secretary of State control over prize salvage proceedings on exactly the same lines as has been applied for the last 90 years or so to ordinary salvage proceedings in cases where one of His Majesty's vessels is involved. I hope that is all I need say in explanation of this Measure. I must not be too brief if the House desires me to be longer, but this is a matter of urgency as discussions and negotiations are going on now. I hope the House will accept what I have said as a sufficient explanation, although I will be quite ready to answer any questions in the few minutes at our disposal.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
Committee upon the next Sitting Day.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
Ordered,
"That Mr. Neil Maclean be added to the Select Committee on National Expenditure."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ARMY LEAVE (MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
Mr. Driberg: Pleasant though it was to learn that the matter I propose to raise was to be dealt with by the hon., gallant and learned Gentleman who is to deal with it on behalf of the War Office, I felt that in a way it was a matter which would have been more congenial to the Secretary of State himself. However, I have no doubt that the hon., gallant and learned Gentleman will, with his usual competence and grace, put up as good a case as the War Office has been able to provide. As a matter of fact, I think that the War Office's share in this matter may turn out to be only secondary and, as it were, intermediate—as accessories after the fact rather than as the prime instigators of the irregularity to which I wish to draw the attention of the House.
Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. Is not the Financial Secretary to the War Office to be here?
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart): I am sorry he is not here at the moment; I think he ought to be here in a minute or two.
Mr. Driberg: That was why I was playing for time and, so to speak, vamping till ready, so as not to start on my more solid arguments until the hon., gallant and learned Gentleman arrived.
I am referring to the rather curious series of incidents and coincidences which preceded the present by-election contest in West Derbyshire and, in particular, to the circumstances in which leave was granted to Lord Hartington whom, until to-day, I should have felt bound to describe as the Conservative candidate,

2115
but whom, since the Prime Minister's letter to West Derbyshire, one should now perhaps describe as the progressive candidate—a role which I think the young man may find a little taxing. Indeed, parenthetically, the participation of the Cavendish family in the forward march of the common people, which was described so glowingly by the Prime Minister, reminds rue irresistibly of the participation of Mussolini in the march on Rome—in the sleeping car of a train de luxe, at the rear. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not bring the same accusation against me, when he replies, that the Leader of the House brought against the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) when he opposed the West Derbyshire Writ. The Leader of the House remarked that the hon. Baronet was fighting the by-election on the Floor of the House. I really do not think that argument a valid one. For one thing, apart from the fact that any Member of this House is entitled to raise on the Adjournment, anything which you, Mr. Speaker, see fit to allow him to raise—and especially, perhaps, matters arising out of unsatisfactory answers to Questions accepted by the Clerks at the Table—I think the electors of West Derbyshire are entitled to as full and authoritative an explanation as they can be given of certain matters which have been mystifying them in connection with one of the candidates now seeking their suffrages.
It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]
Mr. Driberg: On Tuesday last I asked the Secretary of State for War
"on what grounds the Marquess of Hartington was recently granted special leave to attend an emergency meeting of the council of the West Derbyshire Unionist League, before the resignation of the former hon. and gallant Member for West Derbyshire had been announced to the council or to the public."
The Secretary of State replied:
"An officer's leave is a matter between himself and his commanding officer so long as the regulations governing leave generally are observed."
I took the trouble to look up such of those
2116
Regulations as I thought applied, and I found in K.R. 1546 that—
"An application for leave of a special nature will be submitted one month before such leave is required."
I cannot think that that was done in this case, because presumably it would be a little unfair on the electors of West Derbyshire, including the members of the Conservative organisation, if for a whole month it had been known privately to a few people that an election was likely to be pending, but this fact was kept from them. The Secretary of State went on to say:
"As no application for an exception to the regulations has been made to the War Office I can only assume that the leave was normal and not special."
—on which there were cries of "Oh" from a certain number of hon. Members on these benches. When the Secretary of State said he could only assume this, I wished he could have told us a little more definitely that he had made a few inquiries to establish what the actual facts were when the Question was put down on the Order Paper. It may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman will by now have made such inquiries and will be able to tell us whether the Secretary of State's assumption was correct. I asked a supplementary question:
"Are we to take it, then, that any serving soldier who happens to hear privately that a by-election may be pending near his home can obtain leave to go home and try to persuade a group of people to nominate him as a candidate?"
To which the right hon. Gentleman made the rather encouraging reply:
"I should certainly take very great care, and the military authorities will take great care, before refusing an application for an officer to appear before a selection committee."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 8th February, 1944; col. 1610, Vol. 396.]
When he said "officer," I assume that that was just a slip and that he should have included other ranks. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to assure us that he meant all soldiers.
The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson)The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson) indicated assent.
Mr. Driberg: I am glad to have the hon. and learned Gentleman's assent, because that strengthens my point very much and seems to me to imply that, as we now have the Secretary of State's authorisation

2117
for this really rather remarkable democratic advance, not only could the situation I have described in my supplementary arise, but also, supposing that a group of independent electors in West Derbyshire or anywhere else decided to nominate as a candidate someone known to them who was at present serving in the Middle East and was not necessarily detained there by operational requirements—he might be a clerk in the Pay Corps or something non-combatant—obviously, under this ruling, strenuous efforts will be made by the War Office to get him home to fight that election; no doubt he will be flown home, as the hon. and gallant Member for Salisbury (Major Morrison) was flown home to contest his by-election. I thought that it was, on the whole, a very satisfactory supplementary answer from the Secretary of State and a most valuable assurance. There was another supplementary of minor interest which has some bearing on the matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson) asked whether a candidate for Parliament had the same rights as a Member of Parliament, and the Secretary of State replied, "Not quite." Therefore, the question of opting in or out of the Service would not arise in the case of a candidate.
That brings me to one of the two main technicalities which seem to me a little difficult in the case of this young officer. I have an open mind about this and am not suggesting that he behaved wrongly, but I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman would clear up the matter of this officer's resignation of his Regular commission which, it has been reported, was dated 24th January. That date is also the date on which he attended the Unionist meeting in West Derbyshire at which he was selected as Conservative candidate. I have been looking up King's Regulations again to find the various grounds for transfer to the Reserve which are acceptable to the War Office. I had some difficulty in tracking this down. I decided that it could not be "compassionate." I do not think, although this was a little more attractive, that it could be "having been claimed as an apprentice." I decided eventually that it must have been because under King's Regulation 541 (b)
"no officer or soldier may … in any manner publicly announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate or prospective candidate for any constituency
2118
…until he has retired, resigned or bee discharged."
I also found that there were three stages in the process of transferring to the Reserve: it is rather an elaborate process. This is how King's Regulations defines them: first, to authorise; second, to carry out, which includes fixing the date; and, third, to confirm. If it is the case, as is reported, that this young officer's application for transfer to the Reserve was dated 24th January, the usual channels seem in this case to have moved with remarkable and commendable celerity—much more speedily than they were able to move in the case of a young man named Home who wanted to contest a by-election as an Independent some months ago, and was not able to do so owing to letters unfortunately going astray and difficulties of that kind. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Member would clear that point up.
It is when we come to examine the strange and rather shady doings at Bake-well in West Derbyshire on 24th January that this case really gets interesting. I am not for a moment blaming the young gentleman concerned. He knows nothing of politics, and obviously in this matter he has been in the hands of more experienced manipulators of public affairs than himself. According to the report in the local Conservative newspaper, the "High Peak News," which was quoted by the "Manchester Guardian," the first announcement of the impending vacancy was made by the Duke of Devonshire on 24th January when presiding at an emergency meeting of the council of the West Derbyshire Unionist League. The Duke "pointed out to the meeting that it was their duty to select a candidate and he asked for suggestions." In the body of the hall were seated, presumably, one or two fervent admirers of the Duke and his family, because one questioner daringly asked, "whether the Marquess of Hartington was in a position to stand." The chairman "replied in the affirmative, but he emphasised that he had no wish to cause them to feel under any sense of obligation to support Lord Hartington in preference to another candidate." The question arose whether the meeting should not be adjourned to give those members of the council who were not able to be present time to consider the matter and make other recommendations, but, after

2119
discussion, "it was decided that the time was too short."
That rather pulled me up, because I could not understand what was meant. This was two days before the Writ was moved in the House here, by the Duke's brother-in-law. I mention that not in any way as reflecting on the Chief Whip or suggesting for a moment that he would be influenced by family considerations, because it must indeed have been rather embarrassing to him—
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of Order. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is going to indicate what public service he is performing by this speech.
Mr. Driberg: I am hoping to extract from the Minister some enlightenment for the electors of West Derbyshire, as well as for hon. Members of this House who are interested in this subject, which I think will be quite a useful public service. I was saying, when the Noble Lord interrupted me, that I did not suggest that it could have been otherwise than slightly embarrassing to the Chief Whip to move a Writ in the circumstances, and I mentioned the fact that he is the Duke's brother-in-law merely as a sociological curiosity. The "High Peak News" goes on to say, "The chairman stated that as he had felt that possibly questions would be raised as to whether Lord Hartington would be the candidate"—second sight—"he had been able to arrange for him to obtain leave and he was near at hand." Then the curtains parted, or something of that kind, and the young candidate-to-be walked in. Those words "he had been able to arrange for him to obtain leave" are the crux of the matter to which I want the hon., gallant and learned Gentleman to devote a few minutes of his time. I think the Noble Lord will agree that that is a matter of some public interest. It seems to me that, since the Secretary of State has said that no application for an exception to the Regulations was made to the War Office, either someone in the War Office, or in the young Marquess's unit, must have connived at some irregularity, or else—and this is a regrettable thing to have to say—the Duke must have used his great position as a Minister of the Crown to obtain special privileges for the son whom he is trying to jockey into this
2120
House. I use those rather strong words of a Member of the Government and a Member of another place, but I realise that the Duke's conscience is absolutely and perfectly clear on this matter. He is not conscious of having done anything at all improper or unusual, because, to people in his position—
Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member that he may not criticise a Member of another place, except in relation to his office which he holds.
Mr. Driberg: With great respect, Mr. Speaker—and, of course, I bow to your Ruling—I was not criticising, but trying to defend the Duke.
Mr. Speaker: I did not take it that way myself. The words might possibly be taken both ways.
Mr. Driberg: I wish to leave the Minister time to reply, and I will conclude by reading a little jingle or rhyme which I think illustrates rather well the extraordinary remoteness from common life of some people whom we must not name.
"How nice to rise above the crowd"—
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member justified, after being in the constituency for two or three days, without taking part in the election, to come to the House and take part in it?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order. An hon. Member can visit a constituency.
Mr. Driberg: I will read this rhyme and sit down:
"How nice to rise above the crowd
That talks in accents vile and loud;
To wear your coronet to bed
Or pawn it, if you like, instead;
To blow your nose in handkerchieves
Which bear embroidered strawberry-leaves;
To fear nor question nor rebuke—
How nice to be a noble duke."
I think that the people who are supporting the Cavendish interests in this by-election are perhaps in the position of Galileo's opponents, who insisted that everything revolved round them and that the earth did not move. In the words attributed to Galileo, I think that "Eppur si muove." It still does move; things are moving—but not in your direction, your Grace.
The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I understand that my hon. Friend began his speech by saying that he hoped he would not be accused of fighting the by-election on the Floor of the House. I can assure him and the House that I have not the slightest intention of intervening in any way, direct or indirect, in that particular by-election. I am not interested in Lord Hartington, in his political capacity. My function to-day is to deal with him in his military capacity as an Army officer, and to set before the House the facts of the case in so far as the War Office is concerned. My hon. Friend has referred to King's Regulation 541B, which I hope I may be permitted to repeat, because it is very important in connection with the question of this resignation. It states that:
"No officer or soldier may issue an address to electors or in any other way or in any other manner publicly announce himself or allow himself to be publicly announced as a candidate or prospective candidate for any constituency for election to the Parliaments of the United Kingdom until he has retired, resigned or been discharged."
That was the position up to 11th April, 1940, when, by a War Office letter, which will be familiar to some hon. Members, the application of this paragraph was specially defined in relation to wartime conditions so as to permit non-Regular officers and soldiers not serving on Regular engagements to be publicly announced as candidates or prospective candidates, provided that the permission of the Army Council is obtained. I may say that the object of requiring the permission of the Army Council is to ensure that the correct formalities may be observed, and in fact that permission is automatically given and has to be given before the public announcement is made. It is obvious, therefore, that Lord Hartington took the only course open to him if he desired to become a Parliamentary candidate, by resigning his Regular commission, because Regular officers were not included within the purview of the Army Council's letter. Accordingly, Lord Hartington, in a written application to the War Office, dated 18th January—not 24th January—applied for transfer to the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, stating that he was exceedingly anxious to continue doing duty with his regiment until the end of the war. He also stated that if it was not practicable to grant him a commission in the Regular Army Reserve
2122
of Officers he would apply for a war emergency commission, which is the commission held by the majority of officers to-day. It is fair to say that he also undertook, in the event of his being elected not to apply for release from the Army or for any extended period of leave until the end of the war. [Interruption.] I am merely giving the facts; I am not expressing any opinion on them.
In reply, he was informed by the War Office, in a letter dated 24th January, that he was permitted to resign his Regular commission, with effect from 21st January, 1944, and to be appointed to the Regular Army Reserve of Officers. My hon. Friend asks, what authority justifies that action? I am advised that, under the terms of the Army Act, the Army Council have complete discretion to alter the terms of the engagement of any officer serving in the British Army. He was also informed that he would be relegated to unemployment from 25th January for the period of the election, and he was granted permission to be publicly announced as a candidate for Parliament. I come to the question of leave.
Mr. A. Bevan: Before he was a candidate?
Mr. Henderson: Yes. I am informed that Lord Hartington applied on 15th January to his battalion commander—he was serving with the 5th Battalion Coldstream Guards—for leave to visit London, to place before the lieutenant-colonel commanding the Guards his written application to the War Office to resign his Regular commission, in order that he might be adopted as a candidate for Parliament. I should explain to hon. Members that the Guards have a peculiar organisation: a colonel commands a regiment, in which there are a number of battalions. He was granted this leave, from 15th January until 24th January, the date on which he appeared before the council of the West Derbyshire Unionist League. No application for leave to be granted to Lord Hartington was, in fact, made by the Duke of Devonshire. The application was made by Lord Hartington himself. As I have said, it was for leave to enable him to come to London to arrange for the resignation of his Regular commission and for his appointment to the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, and to appear before the council of this local political organisa-

2123
tion, with a view to being considered as their prospective candidate. The commanding officer granted this leave, as he has full power to do. I would like to say to my hon. Friend that the quotation from the Regulations about a month's notice applies only to peace-time, not to wartime.
Mr. Driberg: It was printed in 1940.
Mr. Henderson: That has been amended. Leave Manual 37 (iv), amended by Amendment 1, does give commanding officers full power to grant leave up to 28 days, and it is a power that has been exercised in many cases affecting hon. Members of this House. The officer has this power without reference to higher authority. I am informed that the commanding officer took the view that he considered that no obstacle should be put in the way of an officer who wished to be adopted as a candidate for Parliament. It will thus be seen that Lord Hartington appeared before the council of the local association during leave, which it was quite in order for his commanding officer to grant. The meeting of the association was not a public political meeting, but was, in fact, a meeting convened to select a prospective candidate. It was, therefore, proper, so far as Army Regulations are concerned, for Lord Hartington to appear before it. Lord Hartington himself complied with the regulations by resigning his regular commission and obtaining the Army Council's permission before being publicly announced as a prospective candidate for Parliament. Lord Hartington has been treated in exactly the same way as any other regular officer would be who applied to be allowed to become a candidate for a Parliamentary election.
My hon. Friend asked me a question with regard to other ranks. The position of other ranks serving on regular engage-
2124
ments is similar to that of officers. They are debarred from being publicly announced as prospective candidates while serving in the same way on regular engagement. I am informed that there is no obstacle to a soldier serving on a regular engagement applying to be announced as a candidate for election. If such an application were made, he could be relegated to Class W. of the Army Reserve, would come under the letter I have quoted to the House, and would be in exactly the same position as a non-regular officer, having exactly the same right to become a Parliamentary candidate. He would be required, of course, to continue as a member of the reserve, whether subsequently called for service during the war or not.
In regard to the remarks in the answer to a supplementary question, I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend did not seek to exclude other ranks from the phrase he used in reply to the supplementary question, and that the same consideration would be given to other ranks as to officers. Finally, I desire to make it quite clear that this officer has not been given preferential treatment. On the contrary, he has been given only equality of treatment with those non-regular officers, who, as the House well knows, have become Parliamentary candidates while serving and who to-day are Members of this House.
Mr. Driberg: While thanking the hon. and learned Gentleman very much for his most interesting reply, can we take it that, so far as he knows, the Duke was speaking loosely or inaccurately when he said he had been able to arrange the leave?
Mr. A. Henderson: I have no intention of expressing any views on what appeared in the Press.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

  BEVERIDGE REPORT
  BEVERIDGE REPORT
  INDUSTRIAL WORKERS AND ARMED FORCES (PAY)
  INDUSTRIAL WORKERS AND ARMED FORCES (PAY)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inland Revenue, Annual Reports (Publication)
  Inland Revenue, Annual Reports (Publication)
  University Grants
  University Grants
AGRICULTURE
  Fruit Orchard (Church Lench, Evesham)
  Fruit Orchard (Church Lench, Evesham)
  Cultivation Orders (Convictions)
  Cultivation Orders (Convictions)